Ben was also seeing:
... some of the problems caused by not
having a (strict | anal | strong | paranoid | batshit ) type system. Certain
types of bugs persist for far longer than they should in > 10 line
Perl applications whereas a less laissez-faire type system would flush them
out basically t
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 10:59:31AM +0100, Ben wrote:
> Well, that is true, but I'm also seeing some of the problems caused by not
> having a (strict | anal | strong | paranoid | batshit ) type system. Certain
> types of bugs persist for far longer than they should in > 10 line
> Perl applicati
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 09:46:47AM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 06:44:25PM +0100, Phil Lanch said:
> > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:40:18PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> > > It's just this sort of thing that makes me lurve perl.
> >
> > you mistyped "C++".
>
> Without getti
Simon Wistow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On a tangentially related note, I'm very rapidly starting to come to the
> opinion that there are far too many applications that are written in
> C/C++ which don't need to.
I heartily agree. I think that the combination of a scripting language
plus som
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 06:44:25PM +0100, Phil Lanch said:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:40:18PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> > It's just this sort of thing that makes me lurve perl.
>
> you mistyped "C++".
Without getting into a flamewar, and whilst appreciating the benefits of
compile time ge
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 06:57:41PM +0100, Shevek wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Phil Lanch wrote:
> > you mistyped "C++".
>
> I consider myself to be a programmer. Having read this code, my only
> possible response is, "You what?"
>
> AICMFP.
sorry, i forgot to say:
#include
> > HTH. HAND.
th
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Phil Lanch wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:40:18PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> > It's just this sort of thing that makes me lurve perl.
>
> you mistyped "C++".
I consider myself to be a programmer. Having read this code, my only
possible response is, "You what?"
AICMF
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:40:18PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> It's just this sort of thing that makes me lurve perl.
you mistyped "C++".
class fleeg {
};
class quirka {
public:
quirka () { f = auto_ptr (new fleeg); }
private:
auto_ptr f;
};
class miner {
public:
miner () { q = a
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:07:08PM +0100, Lusercop wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 01:40:08PM +0100, Ben wrote:
> > return foo;
> >
> > FAIL3:
> > free(foo->quirka->fleeg);
> > return NULL;
> > FAIL2:
> > free(foo->quirka);
> > return NULL;
> > FAIL1:
> > free(foo);
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:07:08PM +0100, Lusercop wrote:
> what's wrong with:
>
> | if(foo) {
> | if(foo->quirka) {
> | free(foo->quirka->fleeg);
> | }
> | free(foo->quirka);
> | }
> | free(foo);
>
> In the error condition?
Gets a bit unweildy if you have foo->quirka->fleeg->miner->wi
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 01:40:08PM +0100, Ben wrote:
> return foo;
>
> FAIL3:
> free(foo->quirka->fleeg);
> return NULL;
> FAIL2:
> free(foo->quirka);
> return NULL;
> FAIL1:
> free(foo);
> return NULL;
> }
>
> With nested structures like these, this structur
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 01:03:16PM +0100, Lusercop wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 11:48:19AM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote:
> > I have to admit, I like gotos in C. This is not a winning testimonial
> > though. I've been told that my C is like Object Orientated assembler
> > which is fair enough bec
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 11:48:19AM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote:
> I have to admit, I like gotos in C. This is not a winning testimonial
> though. I've been told that my C is like Object Orientated assembler
> which is fair enough because I learnt C after I'd learnt 68k.
Hmmm, I like gotos too, but
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, muppet wrote:
> stop the wrongful slander of goto!
Man, what a muppet this guy is...
Look, goto's are just bad, mmmkay?
--
Chris Devers[EMAIL PROTECTED]
channeling http://www.askoxford.com/pressroom/archive/odelaunch/>
Nicholas Clark said:
> Parrot has much cleaner source than Perl 5. However, to maintain the
> balance of good and evil^Wgoto, Perl 6 will compile down to parrot
> bytecode, which quite definitely does have gotos. So even the nicest,
> most clean award winning code from the purest best intentioned
Paul Johnson wrote:
> I think I wrote my first ever goto code in C yesterday.
Way back when I was a teen-geek, I played around writing a few games,
mostly in C, with the odd bit of assembler thrown in for bad taste.
One of these was a rip-off of the classic Tron light-cycle game.
I got myself i
Rafael Garcia-Suarez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In bleadperl :
> $ perl -lne 'print if /\bgoto\b/' *.[ch] | wc -l
> 605
>
> This is a rough metric, there are probably less actual gotos than this
> (because of comments and because "goto" is a perl keyword -- not
> forgetting the yacc-generate
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:17, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote;
> However most of gotos appear to be in the tokenizer and in the
> regular expression engine. Thoee are based on state machines, and
> IMHO gotos are legitimate in state machines.
Right, and we all know that every program can be conside
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 11:13:35AM +0100, Nicholas Clark said:
> At the risk of going off topic, the Perl 5 source isn't exactly pleasant.
> And contains gotos. IIRC I added 2 between 5.6.0 and 5.8.0, but the
> alternative was a big mess of if()s and braces. C doesn't have all the
> nice loop label
Nicholas Clark said:
> At the risk of going off topic, the Perl 5 source isn't exactly pleasant.
> And contains gotos. IIRC I added 2 between 5.6.0 and 5.8.0, but the
> alternative was a big mess of if()s and braces. C doesn't have all the
> nice loop labelling features of a certain other languag
Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
> At the risk of going off topic, the Perl 5 source isn't exactly pleasant.
> And contains gotos. IIRC I added 2 between 5.6.0 and 5.8.0, but the
> alternative was a big mess of if()s and braces. C doesn't have all the
> nice loop labelling features of a certain other langu
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 09:53:21AM +, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> Yuck. I didn't actually look at it, just let the ports compile it for
> me.
I didn't inspect it too far, but it seems that the current source
is safe to look at. I seems to have benefited from a complete re-write
> When it come
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 09:49:28AM +, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
>You can get unrar as source code. I posted the link yesterday.
Yes, but not the compressor. Ditto for ACE and ARJ. So there's no way to
originate a RAR file under Linux without using binary-only software, and
any other Unix will
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 07:16:40AM +, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
>> For the benefit of people likely to come up against Yet Another
>> Compression Format, though:
>>
>> http://files10.rarlab.com/rar/unrarsrc-3.2.3.tar.gz
>
> The code in there is a
Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Unix, RAR and ACE are only available as binaries, which puts off a
> lot of people; and neither those nor ZIP preserves file ownership or
> permission information. So while I'm able to extract most files under
> Unix, I wouldn't choose those formats
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:05:02PM +0100, Barbie [home] wrote:
>On 02 September 2003 09:43 Roger Burton West wrote:
>> (All of this
>> only applies to the Windows world, obviously; I think the parallels in
>> Unix, or at least Linux, would be .tar.bz2, .tar.gz, and dodgy
>> commercial software with
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 07:16:40AM +, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> For the benefit of people likely to come up against Yet Another
> Compression Format, though:
>
> http://files10.rarlab.com/rar/unrarsrc-3.2.3.tar.gz
The code in there is a lot cleaner than the last time I looked at
it. (I pr
On 02 September 2003 09:43 Roger Burton West wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 09:24:11AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
>
> [re RAR]
>
>> I'm told it's fairly popular in (some?) Usenet binary newsgroups as a
>> standard way of distributing warez and moviez.
>
> ACE is another format that I understand
Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my experience, people who really care about compressed file size and
> are moderately technically savvy tend to use RAR or ACE; people who
> want their files to be readable by everybody use ZIP; people who are
> catering for virus-prone fools use
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 09:24:11AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
[re RAR]
>I'm told it's fairly popular in (some?) Usenet binary newsgroups as a
>standard way of distributing warez and moviez.
ACE is another format that I understand is used in that context.
>>From what I gather, it supports mult
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, the hatter wrote:
> > > It's certainly not what I'd call anywhere close to being "standard" or
> > > "universal".
> >
> > I'm told it's fairly popular in (some?) Usenet binary newsgroups as a
> > standard way of distributing warez and moviez.
>
> Certainly a majority of warez
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Philip Newton wrote:
> On 2 Sep 2003 at 7:16, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
>
> > It's certainly not what I'd call anywhere close to being "standard" or
> > "universal".
>
> I'm told it's fairly popular in (some?) Usenet binary newsgroups as a
> standard way of distributing warez and
On 2 Sep 2003 at 7:16, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> It's certainly not what I'd call anywhere close to being "standard" or
> "universal".
I'm told it's fairly popular in (some?) Usenet binary newsgroups as a
standard way of distributing warez and moviez.
>From what I gather, it supports multi-vol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I used to be annoyed when someone zipped and the rared. Winzip cannot even
> handle this yet. Nowadays I can just say that RAR is more universial the
> Zip.
That seem unlikely at best. I'd never even heard of winrar until
somebody at work pointed it
I used to be annoyed when someone zipped and the rared. Winzip cannot even
handle this yet. Nowadays I can just say that RAR is more universial the
Zip.
Marcus
Original Message:
-
From: Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 12:35:45 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
35 matches
Mail list logo
