On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 10:21:53PM -0400, Joshua Pritikin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 11:52:28PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 03:51:09PM -0400, Joshua Pritikin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 03:30:06PM -0400, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > > > Since no one r
On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 11:52:28PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 03:51:09PM -0400, Joshua Pritikin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 03:30:06PM -0400, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > > Since no one replied, I think I'm going to try POSIX semaphores. They
> > > are "newer
On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 03:51:09PM -0400, Joshua Pritikin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 03:30:06PM -0400, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > Since no one replied, I think I'm going to try POSIX semaphores. They
> > are "newer" and "less complicate" according to Stevens.
>
> Oh, wait! Graham wrote
On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 03:30:06PM -0400, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> Since no one replied, I think I'm going to try POSIX semaphores. They
> are "newer" and "less complicate" according to Stevens.
Oh, wait! Graham wrote IPC::Semaphore way back in 1997... Hm.
--
"May the best description of c
On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 09:42:15AM -0400, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> I am studying Stevens' IPC book. Does anyone know the pros & cons of
> SysV vs. POSIX semaphores? I see that POSIX semaphores are "newer" than
> SysV. My solaris 2.6 box supports both styles. Does linux express a
> preference
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:59:24 +0200
Subject: CPAN Upload: JPRIT/Event-0.74.tar.gz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The uploaded file
Event-0.74.tar.gz
has entered CPAN as
On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 12:25:28PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> JNP> Yes, that how it works either way. Hash assignment returns the new
> JNP> value; the else branch would be redundent.
>
> but nik has a good point. i didn't think about the extra hash lookup. i
> just hate extra else cl
> "JNP" == Joshua N Pritikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JNP> if (@_) {
JNP> $self->{$pkg} = shift
JNP> } else {
>>
>> drop the else. accessors should always return the value whether freshly
>> set or not.
JNP> Yes, that how it works either way. Hash assignment returns the ne
On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 12:08:12PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > "JNP" == Joshua N Pritikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> sub privateData
> >> {
> >> my $obj = shift;
> >> my $key = shift || caller;
> >> $obj->{$key} ||= {};
> >> }
>
> i am not sure of why the need for
Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "JNP" == Joshua N Pritikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> sub privateData
> >> {
> >> my $obj = shift;
> >> my $key = shift || caller;
> >> $obj->{$key} ||= {};
> >> }
>
>
>i am not sure of why the need for private data per caller.
It was
> "JNP" == Joshua N Pritikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> sub privateData
>> {
>> my $obj = shift;
>> my $key = shift || caller;
>> $obj->{$key} ||= {};
>> }
i am not sure of why the need for private data per caller. i used the
data attribute in a global way when i wrote event
I am studying Stevens' IPC book. Does anyone know the pros & cons of
SysV vs. POSIX semaphores? I see that POSIX semaphores are "newer" than
SysV. My solaris 2.6 box supports both styles. Does linux express a
preference?
--
"May the best description of competition prevail."
via, bu
On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 08:36:21AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Joshua N Pritikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Granted. Perhaps the thing to do is to document that data() should
> >be reimplemented in every subclass to use a uniqueish key:
>
> Graham Barr came up with this for Tk:
>
> su
Joshua N Pritikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Granted. Perhaps the thing to do is to document that data() should
>be reimplemented in every subclass to use a uniqueish key:
>
> sub data {
>my ($o, $data) = @_;
>$o->{ __PACKAGE__ } = $data if @_ > 1;
>$o->{ __PACKAGE__ }
> }
Grah
14 matches
Mail list logo
