Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 12:58:01PM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
It doesn't have to be like that. Functions that are not in the core can
still be automatically loaded, but only if your code actually uses them.
That could make the perl kernel a lot smaller than it is now,
Matthew Cline wrote:
Should there be method to tell an SV to change the internal representation
of
the data? For example, if an SV was created as a string, but is being
turned
into a float over and over again for use in equations, it would save
processing time to convert the internal
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:47:59AM -0500, James Mastros wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:53:23AM -0200, Branden wrote:
Because with a better built-in that handles fractions of second (if that's
ever desired, and I guess it is), time() would be deprecated and could
be easily reproduced as
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:49:59AM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:39:25 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why the urge to move it out of the core? Should perl6 be like Python,
where you first need to do a gazillion imports
James Mastros wrote:
(And please, don't get into epoch discussions here. The units, accuracy,
resolution, and zeropoint of a measurement are all different questions. I
personaly would prefer to see units of seconds, a basepoint of 1/1/1970, and
resolution and accuracy
Today around 3:45pm, Andreas J. Koenig hammered out this masterpiece:
: On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:04:46 +, Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
:
: dbmopen() already loads AnyDBM_File to do the real work without the
: user (or script) knowing, so this idea could be extended.
:
:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:53:23AM -0200, Branden wrote:
Because with a better built-in that handles fractions of second (if that's
ever desired, and I guess it is), time() would be deprecated and could
be easily reproduced as int(now()) or anything like it.
Why can't we change the meaning of
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:04:46 +, Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
dbmopen() already loads AnyDBM_File to do the real work without the
user (or script) knowing, so this idea could be extended.
And nobody in this thread has ever mentioned Time::HiRes. Is there a reason?
--
James Mastros wrote:
Why can't we change the meaning of time() slightly without changing to a
different function name? Yes, it will silently break some existing code,
but that's OK -- remember, 90% with traslation, 75% without. being in
that
middle 15% isn't a bad thing.
I share your
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 12:04:46PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
It doesn't have to be like that. Functions that are not in the core can
still be automatically loaded, but only if your code actually uses them.
That could make the perl kernel a lot smaller than it is now, and
hopefully,
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Casey R. Tweten wrote:
opinion
Not that there needs to be any discussion on this but IMHO things that
can reasonably live outside the core should. I heard somewhere that
most people think this way too.
This is why there hasn't been much discussion on it -- there's not
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:53:13 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
So nice of you to volunteer for being our help desk person man for
explaining to people why their time() just got broken :-)
I'd use the same function name for both the integer version of time(),
and the hires version. All you need is
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 04:25:46PM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:53:13 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
So nice of you to volunteer for being our help desk person man for
explaining to people why their time() just got broken :-)
I'd use the same function name for both
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:39:25 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why the urge to move it out of the core? Should perl6 be like Python,
where you first need to do a gazillion imports before you can do anything
useful? Say goodbye to quick one-liners then.
Bart Lateur wrote:
What if we take the ordinary sleep() for the largest part of the
sleeping time (no busy wait), and the 4 argument select for the
remainder, i.e. subsecond?
You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Sleep doesn't have the signal delivery problems that alarm has,
James Mastros [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why can't we change the meaning of time() slightly without changing to a
different function name? Yes, it will silently break some existing code,
but that's OK -- remember, 90% with traslation, 75% without. being in that
middle 15% isn't a bad thing.
Branden wrote:
Actually, with event loops and threading issues, probably things like
the perl built-ins sleep and alarm won't ever be passed to the syscalls
sleep(3) and alarm(3).
Sleep isn't usually a syscall -- it's often a library routine that sets
an alarm and blocks or uses some other
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:36:32 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
You want perl to block a thread and then busy wait until
it's time for the thread to wake up?
What if we take the ordinary sleep() for the largest part of the
sleeping time (no busy wait), and the 4 argument select for the
remainder, i.e.
Never over-design. Never think "Hmm, maybe somebody would find this
useful". Start from what you know people _have_ to have, and try to
make that set smaller. When you can make it no smaller, you've reached
one point. That's a good point to start from - use that for some real
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 05:55:13PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
Never over-design. Never think "Hmm, maybe somebody would find this
useful". Start from what you know people _have_ to have, and try to
make that set smaller. When you can make it no smaller, you've reached
one point.
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 12:05:46PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
I've always shaken my head in disbelief when people measure/brag
about programming prowess by the number of lines of code written.
A true programmer is able to delete lines and still achieve the same
functionality while
I like Linus' quote, but that spirit would probably push Perl too
far into the computer scientists' language traps. Here's a Frank
Lloyd Wright quote I think works a bit better:
Five lines where three are enough is stupidity.
Nine pounds where three are sufficient is stupidity.
But to
From: Simon Cozens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Never over-design. Never think "Hmm, maybe somebody would find this
useful". Start from what you know people _have_ to have, and try to
make that set smaller. When you can make it no smaller, you've
reached one point. That's a good point to
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 05:23:43PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Pulling out or mangling time strikes me as intensely pointless, and I don't
see it happening. The socket stuff is really the only core functionality
that makes any sense to pull out, and that only from an architectural
Or, should we just implement usleep() and (for lack of a better name)
snooze() is a better name ;-)
nap() is even better (shorter that sleep() :-)
Damian
At 10:58 PM 1/31/2001 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:53:23AM -0200, Branden wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sub Time::Local::time {
return int(CORE::now());
}
Why the urge to move it out of the core? Should perl6 be like Python,
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 05:55:13PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
Never over-design. Never think "Hmm, maybe somebody would find this
useful". Start from what you know people _have_ to have, and try to
make that set smaller. When you can make it no smaller, you've reached
one point.
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 10:18:19AM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Casey R. Tweten wrote:
opinion
Not that there needs to be any discussion on this but IMHO things that
can reasonably live outside the core should. I heard somewhere that
most people think this way
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Tim Bunce wrote:
Since this thread is in the mood for quotes, here's one I'm fond of...
It goes something along the lines of:
Any fool can create a complicated system.
The real skill is in making a simple one.
Ok, if we're all contributing
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 12:58:01PM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:39:25 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why the urge to move it out of the core? Should perl6 be like Python,
where you first need to do a gazillion imports before you can do anything
useful? Say goodbye to
30 matches
Mail list logo
