On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 05:51:27PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
you *don't* need to remember
you are programming in perl5 or perl6, and get the same functionality.
But you need to remember it anyway, so remembering it for time() is
no added burden.
Uhm. NO! Remembering that $x+1 things have
On Wednesday 31 January 2001 16:03, Dave Storrs wrote:
"I'm sorry for writing you such a long letter; I didn't have time
to write a shorter one."
-- Abraham Lincoln
I thought that was a quote by Pascal?
--
Matthew Cline| Suppose you were an idiot. And
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and [EMAIL PROTECTED] whispered:
| To make a simple loop, Perl offers you: for, foreach, while, until,
| {redo}, map, grep, //g, goto and recursion. Which 9 of them do you
| propose to drop from the language so Perl causes less confusion?
|
| There Is More Than
John Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Cozens wrote:
John Porter wrote:
But you need to remember it anyway, so remembering it for time() is
no added burden.
Uhm. NO! Remembering that $x+1 things have changed is an "added
burden"
over remembering that $x things have
Since everyone's spinning aimlessly around, I'll throw out something for
everyone to think about, and perhaps we can get a PDD out of it.
One of the features of perl 6 is going to be the ability to automatically
use a module if one or more preregistered functions are used in your
source. So,
At 09:49 PM 2/1/2001 +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The module loaded can define the routines as either regular perl
subs or opcode functions (the difference is in calling convention
mainly) [...]
Difference in calling convention at the user level or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It might makes sense to have some other functions giving units
since some point in the past next to time() though.
How about time($)
it could take an offset. Not
time(3)
being the same as
(time() + 3)
That would be silly; but what if
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 02:04:41PM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Looks pretty close to what's needed. Care to flesh it out (and streamline
it where needed) to a PDD?
Isn't the trick to detect the necessary modules at compile time?
Yeah, but at least with AnyLoader as a
At 02:04 PM 2/1/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:33 PM 2/1/2001 -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Have a look at AnyLoader in CPAN.
Looks pretty close to what's needed. Care to flesh it out (and streamline
it where needed) to a PDD?
Isn't the trick to detect the
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 02:04 PM 2/1/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
Isn't the trick to detect the necessary modules at compile time?
Nope, no trick at all. The parser will have a list of functions--if it sees
function X, it loads in module Y. (Possibly version Z) Nothing fancy needs
to be done.
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:45:16AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
I don't think anyone is suggesting that we make changes just
because we can. OBVIOUSLY we would only implement changes
that add something desirable. And the weight of known
desirables is large, or we wouldn't be making perl6.
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:33 PM 2/1/2001 -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Have a look at AnyLoader in CPAN.
Looks pretty close to what's needed. Care to flesh it out (and streamline
it where needed) to a PDD?
Isn't the trick to detect the necessary modules at compile time? Run-time
can
At 07:34 PM 2/1/2001 -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 02:04:41PM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Looks pretty close to what's needed. Care to flesh it out (and streamline
it where needed) to a PDD?
Isn't the trick to detect the necessary modules at
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 10:14:20AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
One of the features of perl 6 is going to be the ability to automatically
use a module if one or more preregistered functions are used in your
source.
Would someone care to take a shot at formalizing the system? We need a way
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 04:02:31PM +, Tim Bunce wrote:
of the Foo interface (one SX and one pure-perl, for example).
s/SX/XS/ of course.
Tim.
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:45:16AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
For example, take a look at RFC 28 (whose title
happens to be "Perl should stay Perl"): nothing but ill-
informed, petulant, absurd whinging about certain classes
of proposed features that the author, in his humble little
opinion,
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 04:54:53PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:52:37AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
just a method for doing what we currently do with, say, glob or
the heavy unicode things?
None of the above. What I'm looking for is the pieces that turn the use
Looking over some C code of the form
int fname(char *param){
int rval;
...
return(rval);
}
I recalled hearing about a language (was it java?) where
you set the return value of a function (was it VB?) by
assigning to the name of the function within the function
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
We could even define a new line noise variable which could hold the
results of the last name-of-function subroutine that was not invoked
as an rvalue (I nominate $__ ); make such an invokation a warning-level
offense; and make $__ visibility/localization compatible
At 04:54 PM 2/1/2001 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:52:37AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
just a method for doing what we currently do with, say, glob or
the heavy unicode things?
None of the above. What I'm looking for is the pieces that turn the use of
a function
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:52:37AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
just a method for doing what we currently do with, say, glob or
the heavy unicode things?
None of the above. What I'm looking for is the pieces that turn the use of
a function into an automagic use of the module containing
At 03:44 PM 2/1/2001 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 10:14:20AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
The module loaded can define the routines as either regular
perl subs or opcode functions (the difference is in calling convention
mainly) and could be the standard mix of perl or
David Grove wrote:
RFC 0 continues to be bogus, despite its repetition.
Perl6 will be Perl, even though it won't be Perl5.
It will be a different language, yet it will still be Perl.
Correct. However, the lack of that argument doesn't mean that we should
arbitrarily slaughter the
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:33 PM 2/1/2001 -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Have a look at AnyLoader in CPAN.
Looks pretty close to what's needed. Care to flesh it out (and streamline
it where needed) to a PDD?
There's also autouse, a pragma that ships with Perl. Again, not exactly
right
24 matches
Mail list logo
