(This is a carryover from the p5p list.)
I do not think we should encourage ANY specific licensing terms for CPAN
content, except that it should be an open source license of some kind.
Bradley Kuhn wrote:
However, the Artistic license isn't legally sound enough to hold water
as a free software
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 03:31:54PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
Could someone enlighten this poor soul and tell me what I _can_ do
with an error return from a print or close?
Surely you'd want to know if your output can't be output (print) and
for close, take a look at this:
Leon Brocard writes:
In an effort to avoid organising YAPC::Europe, I went through the 126
modules with documentation in Perl 5.6.0's lib/ directory and
documented what kind of interface they provided. Not all of them
follow perlstyle, and I think perl6's standard libraries should. But
--- Chaim Frenkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"SWM" == Steven W McDougall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
SWM If you actually compile a Perl program, like
SWM $a = $b
SWM and then look at the op tree, you won't find the
symbol "$b", or "b"
SWM anywhere in it. The fetch() op does not
I have one question about vtbls that I have not been able
to figure out an answer to:
How does using a vtbl get rid of the switch(sv-sv_flags)
with multi-valued scalars running around? That is, how does
one write a vtbl function that can cope with the perl6
equivalent of perl5's
At 16:42 -0700 2000.09.10, Russ Allbery wrote:
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I feel the need to emphasize that licenses are not necessarily
legal documents.
I think this is a key point of disagreement. If the license is not a
legal document, it's not a *license*; it may be
No, it is absolutely not patently false. It's entirely accurate. Perhaps
you've missed what the FSF says about the Artistic License (used by
itself), an opinion that I've heard is backed up by their legal counsel:
The Artistic license.
We cannot say that this is a free software license
That is the opinion of the FSF (and their legal counsel, who I'm not
inclined to trust anyway),
Gee, Christ, whyever wouldn't you be quick to trust the word of
someone with the temerity to claim that where we've previously used
the word "encumbered", we must now instead use the word "free"?
Like it or not, we do have to deal with the law.
I see no evidence of that.
--tom
In more of an attempt to be constructive, what if we identify the key
aspects to the AL that people like and then, for Perl 6, find legal
counsel to review and help draft a precise legal license with those key
features?
Here's what I like: *LARRY AND LARRY ALONE* gets to say what happens to
that
I've an idea to cut down and weed out the huge number of RFCs we have.
Its written out below.
=pod
=head1 TITLE
Prototype implementations for RFCs.
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4 21:11:56 EDT 2000
Version:1
Mailing
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 09:58:14PM +0100, Alan Burlison wrote:
I don't believe in magic. I'm an engineer by profession, not an
astrologer. However, I will predict endless arguments when some of the
less than coherent proposals are rejected.
The RFC process was intended to bring out both
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 12:57:47AM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
"MGS" == Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MGS =head1 ABSTRACT
MGS RFCs should be followed by a prototype implementation of their
MGS proposal which provides something concrete to develop the RFC from and
MGS helps
At 09:40 PM 9/9/00 +0100, Matthew Gillman wrote:
Basically, my comment is that a lot of commercial applications seem to be
mixing and matching languages together (like C++ and Perl), so it would be
really great if the issues such as Purify errors for embedded Perl were
addressed (I realise
At 10:26 PM 9/9/00 -0400, Steven W McDougall wrote:
RFC 178 proposes a shared data model for Perl6 threads. In a shared
data model
- globals are shared unless localized
- file-scoped lexicals are shared unless the thread recompiles the
file
- block scoped lexicals may be shared by
- passing
At 07:58 PM 9/9/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
Ken Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Short
circuiting should not be customizable by each type for example.
We are already having that argument^Wdiscussion elsewhere ;-)
But I agree variable vtables are not the place for that.
As do I, up to a
At 09:43 PM 9/9/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS Right, but databases are all dealing with mainly disk access. A 1ms lock
DS operation's no big deal when it takes 100ms to fetch the data being
locked.
DS A 1ms lock operation *is* a big deal when
Chaim Frenkel wrote:
Please elaborate.
How deep do you go?
$h{a}{b}{c}{d}{e}{f}
This is my last mail on this subject - it is a half-assed idea, and this
whole thread is becoming too tedious for words. Actually, I'd extend
that to the whole p6 process. In fact I think I'll just unsubscribe.
Nathan Torkington wrote:
Thanks for that grim view, Alan. I've been looking around for someone
to act as the Devil's Advocate and say what might go wrong, so I was
happy to see this.
Glad to be of service ;-)
I agree that the current brainstorming is chaotic. I feel like that's
the
What we're doing about that:
* pushing the output through Larry
[Yes, this addresses only part of the problem. Any suggestions for
other ways to solve this?]
The RFC mountain is way, way too high to be climbed by just one person,
let alone the output of the various mailing lists.
risks.html
1. Minimized by another culling phase after the RFC freeze
2. Minimized by the sub-working groups. You will notice that the
discussions on the sub-groups are quite localized in people and
discussions are limited. Some groups are noisy but what you are
witnessing is an
Nathan Torkington wrote:
We're lucky to have the experience of Chip to draw upon (he's already
blazed some of the trails we'll be turning into fully-paved four-lane
highways with Waffle Houses and Conocos), as well as a lot of people
who've worked with perl5. They know what works and what
At 16:24 -0700 2000.09.10, Russ Allbery wrote:
Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as in my opinion you didn't
prove anything,
I absolutely proved that the software licensed AL-only is known to be free
software. I also accept that some, maybe many, people think it is not.
But that
At 16:32 -0700 2000.09.10, Russ Allbery wrote:
In more of an attempt to be constructive, what if we identify the key
aspects to the AL that people like and then, for Perl 6, find legal
counsel to review and help draft a precise legal license with those key
features?
I think that's a good idea,
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I feel the need to emphasize that licenses are not necessarily
legal documents.
I think this is a key point of disagreement. If the license is not a
legal document, it's not a *license*; it may be a statement of permission
or something else
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not think we should encourage ANY specific licensing terms for CPAN
content, except that it should be an open source license of some kind.
I agree with this as a statement of general "official" policy; however,
I'll certainly encourage people who
At 14:05 -0700 2000.09.10, Russ Allbery wrote:
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not think we should encourage ANY specific licensing terms for CPAN
content, except that it should be an open source license of some kind.
I agree with this as a statement of general "official" policy;
It seems pretty clear from this response, Chris, that you're not actually
interested in discussing licensing. That's certainly your perogative; I
don't particularly enjoy having to work out the legal intricacies either.
You are instead interested in discussing the fact that you dislike the
law,
At 15:31 -0700 2000.09.10, Russ Allbery wrote:
It seems pretty clear from this response, Chris, that you're not actually
interested in discussing licensing.
That's not true.
You are instead interested in discussing the fact that you dislike the
law, the way the law is applied and interpreted,
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, if you want to bring up specifics, you can. But you (and Bradley)
said some things that were provably false, and I proved them false.
Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as in my opinion you didn't
prove anything, simply asserted that
At 19:10 -0400 2000.09.10, Chris Nandor wrote:
No, I am interested in both. The fact that you didn't understand that
could be my fault, but I think I made it clear enough.
You know, I think I want to make this more clear.
I am interested in how various licenses will be interpreted legally. I
I'm sorry about my last two messages; they may have helped me vent my
spleen, but they weren't accomplishing anything productive.
In more of an attempt to be constructive, what if we identify the key
aspects to the AL that people like and then, for Perl 6, find legal
counsel to review and help
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 01:31:39PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Or, better still, pass a reference to the actual variable being tied.
Good idea.
Also notice that I suggested the TIE be called as a method,
so that it can be inherited if necessary (maybe you had that idea
already???)
The tie
Michael G Schwern wrote:
sub lock { print "Hello!" }
$trans = new Lock::Ness;
lock $trans; # $trans-lock
That's not right.
You're correct. Sorry for not double-checking my examples.
the same reasons I've already pointed out. You don't want adding a
method to a class to
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 09:22:39PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Regardless of my huge error above, this doesn't change the fact that
this is exactly what tie() does currently in Perl 5. That is:
tie @a, 'Matrix';
push @a, $stuff;
Now changes the meaning of push() in the current
It may make sense to pass a leading argument to TIE which is the type
of variable being tied.
tie Some::Class $foo, @args;
would produce:
TIE('SCALAR', 'Some::Class', @args);
Or, better still, pass a reference to the actual variable being tied.
Chaim Frenkel wrote:
"GL" == Glenn Linderman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GL Chaim Frenkel wrote:
($foo, $baz, @bar) = (1,(2,3),4) # $foo = 1 $baz=2, @bar=(3,4)
Actually, looking at it like that makes it an ugly situation. The 'new'
expectation would be to have it become
# $foo=1
my_while { pred() } { # don't gimme no Tcl flac.
...
} # no semicolon needed here!
DC Just added to the RFC :-)
How would the parser handle this? Some '}' would need ';' some don't.
The trailing C parameter specification tells the parser that there
the last
Would it be possible to expand the function prototypes so that a function
could be defined to take a loop block instead of a code block?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Damian
"TC" == Tom Christiansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
but that is the user's to set. PERL_PRELOAD
TC is there for the user to unset.
allows the admin to globally
set (in the system shell rc file) the rc files that perl will load.
TC And what sorts of things might the admin care to globally
"TC" == Tom Christiansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
grep { $_ == 1 } 1..1_000_000
grep doesn't short-circuit.
TC I never did figure out why "last" {w,sh,c}ouldn't be made to do
TC that very thing.
Hey, I suggested that a while ago, but Randal shot it down.
Something about the block not
"DC" == Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DC I would propose that the Cgrep operation should short-circuit if the
DC block throws an exception, with the value of the expection determining
DC whether the final invocation of the block should accept the element it
DC was filtering:
Why not
"Chaim" == Chaim Frenkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"TC" == Tom Christiansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
grep { $_ == 1 } 1..1_000_000
grep doesn't short-circuit.
TC I never did figure out why "last" {w,sh,c}ouldn't be made to do
TC that very thing.
Chaim Hey, I suggested that a while ago,
Quantum::Superpositions provides this in a more flexible way by adding the
'any' and 'all' keywords.
http://search.cpan.org/doc/DCONWAY/Quantum-Superpositions-1.03/lib/Quantum/
Superpositions.pm
One of Damian Conway's many promised RFCs will cover
"TC" == Tom Christiansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But, Do you really think that all these ingenuities, to not use another
term, are really natural and easy to understand to novice programmers ?
TC Until you start thinking of terms of hashes, you aren't thinking
TC in Perl. It serves no
On 10 Sep 2000 00:33:43 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
PS Yes, please. I view the flattening of lists as a feature, not a bug, and
PS it has made Perl a lot easier to understand IMHO.
I view it as a mis-feature.
I'm sorry to disagree. But flattening of argument lists is one of those
things that
Nathan Wiger wrote:
Bart Lateur wrote:
Why interpolate "$obj-method" and not "Class-method"?
This is a decent point worth considering.
I think another way to look at it which is more accurrate is that - is
special in many cases already:
/$foo-{blah}/ # - special
47 matches
Mail list logo
