* Tony Bowden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 05:43:08PM -, Ivor Williams wrote:
> > "Time flies like an arrow" can parsed in 5 different ways.
>
> OK ... I get 4 ... what am I missing?
>
well i can also see 4, although mine may be more insane ...
time the speed of fli
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Simon Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Chris Devers wrote:
>
> > English is a complex & idiomatic language [snip]
> >
> > Kinda like Perl, actually :)
>
> So, Perl is to English as /python|java|ruby/ is to ?
Well, one of the artificial languages like Esperanto.
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Chris Devers wrote:
> English is a complex & idiomatic language [snip]
>
> Kinda like Perl, actually :)
So, Perl is to English as /python|java|ruby/ is to ?
/me ducks.
Simon.
--
"And after all that, there was my biscuit on the table".
On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 05:50:45PM +, Redvers Davies wrote:
> > I hate to poke my head above the parapet, but just where did English get
> > this 'difficult to learn' reputation? English is not tonal, not
>
> Consistancy. English has none.
As opposed to Esperanto and, er, maybe Lojban, and
On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 05:12:11PM +, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
> Andy Wardley wrote:
> > English is riddled with inconsistencies that makes it one of the hardest
> > spoken languages to learn.
> I hate to poke my head above the parapet, but just where did English get
> this 'difficult to learn
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Redvers Davies wrote:
> > I hate to poke my head above the parapet, but just where did English get
> > this 'difficult to learn' reputation? English is not tonal, not
>
> Consistancy. English has none.
Subtlety. Chinese has *way too much*.
Generally, a non-native Englis
On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 05:43:08PM -, Ivor Williams wrote:
> "Time flies like an arrow" can parsed in 5 different ways.
OK ... I get 4 ... what am I missing?
Tony
--
--
Tony Bowden | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.tmtm
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Redvers Davies wrote:
> > I hate to poke my head above the parapet, but just where did English get
> > this 'difficult to learn' reputation? English is not tonal, not
>
> Consistancy. English has none.
How about spelling? ;-)
L.
"Kill the bad guy, rescue the damsel in di
> I hate to poke my head above the parapet, but just where did English get
> this 'difficult to learn' reputation? English is not tonal, not
Consistancy. English has none.
Jonathan Peterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> I hate to poke my head above the parapet, but just where did English get
> this 'difficult to learn' reputation? English is not tonal, not
> gendered, and not declined. It has one, small, 26 character alphabet
> with no accents.
Many people (
Andy Wardley wrote:
> English is riddled with inconsistencies that makes it one of the hardest
> spoken languages to learn.
I hate to poke my head above the parapet, but just where did English get
this 'difficult to learn' reputation? English is not tonal, not
gendered, and not declined. It has
David Cantrell wrote:
> That is no less consistent than the convention of spelling proper nouns
> with an initial capital, always capitalising 'I', and capitalising the
> first letter of he, she, his, her etc when referring to deities.
English is riddled with inconsistencies that makes it one of
On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 01:56:47PM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
> Wait, let's put prepositions and determinants in UPPER CASE so that they
> stand out. That'll surely make the english language more self-consistent:
>
> >"IT IS A truth universally acknowledged THAT A language IN
> > possess
Wait, let's put prepositions and determinants in UPPER CASE so that they
stand out. That'll surely make the english language more self-consistent:
>"IT IS A truth universally acknowledged THAT A language IN
> possession OF A rich syntax MUST be IN need OF A rewrite."
> -- Jane A
>
>"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
> possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
> -- Jane Austen?
ROFL. Heh.
--
Jonathan Peterson
Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, +44 (0)20 7383 6092
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard Clamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 09:03:44AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Richard Clamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 08:12:42PM +, Robin Houston wrote:
>> >> Do you want to find the coderef of foo from _within_ a pre or post
>
On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 09:03:44AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Richard Clamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 08:12:42PM +, Robin Houston wrote:
> >> Do you want to find the coderef of foo from _within_ a pre or post
> >> handler?
> >
> > No, within foo (or something
Richard Clamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 08:12:42PM +, Robin Houston wrote:
>> Do you want to find the coderef of foo from _within_ a pre or post
>> handler?
>
> No, within foo (or something foo may happen to implictly call)
Umm... one of the really neat things abo
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 08:12:42PM +, Robin Houston wrote:
> Do you want to find the coderef of foo from _within_ a pre or post
> handler?
No, within foo (or something foo may happen to implictly call)
I'm crazy but not that crazy.
I found a solution as I stepped off the train - and then I
Do you want to find the coderef of foo from _within_ a pre or post
handler?
If so, I imagine that's more or less equivalent to finding a coderef
for 'bar' from within 'foo', given
sub xxx {
foo();
bar();
baz();
}
It can certainly be done using Want-like techniques, but it'll make
yo
In doing some hacking[0] with Hook::LexWrap and caller, doing dodgy
things to try and find the true coderef of the code that's calling me,
so I can do even more dodgy things to its pad, and I've hit a
stumbling block.
Hook::LexWrap turns something like this:
sub foo {
print "Hi kids, I'm foo
21 matches
Mail list logo
