On fredag, feb 28, 2003, at 18:20 Europe/Oslo, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:39 PM -0500 2/27/03, Sherm Pendley wrote:
On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 08:01 PM, Daniel Stillwaggon wrote:
Any perl application could ship with all of the perls and modules
that it requires in its .pkg. Before
On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 12:42 PM, Daniel Stillwaggon wrote:
On Friday, Feb 28, 2003, at 09:20 US/Pacific, Dan Sugalski wrote:
A way to do packaging would be good, though there are licensing
issues there that you don't have to deal with when using
system-installed code.
Would the
On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 11:55 PM, Peter N Lewis wrote:
Actually, since I've done this, installing 5.8 over your stock perl
does not seem to cause any problems in general.
Maahahahahah, NOT YET, it hasn't!
The possibility exists that you'll be reverted back to 5.6 with an OS
Hi,
I'll chime in as an OSX user and perl user. I think you need to
define this a little better.
Pardon me for a long post of no code or even design, but I think as a
direction I need to get this clear to myself. This applies to any
distribution
of an OS which includes Perl (or any other
I can't resist chiming in to this discussion.
The problem of how to have multiple versions of Perl coexist on a system
was solved in Perl long ago. It involves storing certain things in
directories labeled with the version number, and specifying those
directories at compile-time so that they are
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:28:58PM -0600, Joe Davison wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Nathan Torkington wrote:
A .pkg is specifically just a distribution of files to be installed
using the Installer program. You can add pre- and post- actions to a
package (which I should have done for
On Saturday, March 1, 2003, at 03:00 PM, stephen rouse wrote:
with XML::DOM and XML::Parser (to try the SAX parsing method).
i was wondering:
is one way preferred over the other for some reason, or is it pretty
much just a matter of preference?
There is no golden rule - you need to decide which
On Saturday, March 1, 2003, at 03:00 PM, stephen rouse wrote:
with XML::DOM and XML::Parser (to try the SAX parsing method).
i was wondering:
is one way preferred over the other for some reason, or is it pretty
much just a matter of preference?
Preference and application.
Personally, I'm
If you're new to XML processing, XML::Simple::LibXML is a bare-bones
LibXML wrapper that will get you up and running quickly.
Sorry, make that XML::SimpleObject(::LibXML).
To reveal files in the Finder, the nifty open(1) command is faster than
osascript and supports multiple files easily. Use a shell script or
shell function such as the following. I called it rif and placed it
under the ~/bin/`uname` directory to avoid the script being in the
command path on other
Good afternoon,
On 28/2/03 at 12:39 PM, Peter N Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In that case, don't even think about trying to build a smaller bundle
- people in general will not even blink before 10MB these days, and
in general wont worry about it until it is *much* bigger than that.
I
11 matches
Mail list logo
