On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 03:11:08AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> substr($foo, 1, 3) = "hi!"; # We all know this.
> splice(@foo, 1, 3) = @bar; # But the lack of this seems asymmetric
An originally we had
splice(@foo, 1, 3, @bar);
but not
substr($foo, 1, 3, "hi!");
which are more useful, IM
Ack.
For quite a while I've had the project of getting everything on
tmtowtdi.perl.org moved to a new box called onion. The CPAN foo I'm
hosting was moved a while ago and www.perl.org has been running on
onion ever since I started hosting it at ValueClick, so those sites
were not affected.
Earl
Dan Sugalski writes:
: Besides, having the site administrator forbid the installation of parser
: tweaks might not be what is wanted. If we get PPython in there, a site may
: well have a Python.pm module handy, and source might start:
:
:use site_policy qw(Python);
:
: for modules that wer
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 03:22:12PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> Will there be confusion with the _ that means "the file statted by
> the last -X test?" I doubt it: file tests need to bind tighter than
> the concat op and the problem is over.
Hey, that would make "_ _ __" legal Perl code. Abiga
substr($foo, 1, 3) = "hi!"; # We all know this.
splice(@foo, 1, 3) = @bar; # But the lack of this seems asymmetric
$baz = $foo.bar;# Surely this is just overloaded "." being a
# subroutine in $foo's package called with a
# barew
At 01:16 PM 4/27/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
>: It's also the one reason that I really like the idea of policy files of
>: some sort, to allow sites that don't want this sort of thing to forbid it.
>: I'm not talking things like perl automagically loading policy files in.
>
John Porter writes:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: > On the other hand, people don't generally declare which dialect they're
: > going to speak in before they start speaking.
:
: On the other other hand, perl already embraces the philosophy
: of pre-declaring things that change the language. That's wha
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> I'd rather it be "cc" or "_" (I didn't like the underscore at first,
> but it's grown on me a little)
Comparing ~ and _ to available editors markup marks, _ is closer
to the sideways () that an editor might use to indicate that two words
should be joined together.
Larry Wall wrote:
> On the other hand, people don't generally declare which dialect they're
> going to speak in before they start speaking.
On the other other hand, perl already embraces the philosophy
of pre-declaring things that change the language. That's what
a pragma is. Even "my" could
Dan Sugalski writes:
: It's also the one reason that I really like the idea of policy files of
: some sort, to allow sites that don't want this sort of thing to forbid it.
: I'm not talking things like perl automagically loading policy files in.
: Rather having "use site_policy;" set limits tha
One additional item I thought I had in my yestermessage but apparently
forgot: don't forget the regex minilanguage. Debugging it should be
an integral part.
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Co
Great, thanks very much.
Dave
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > > see it.) The debugger must be able to see two scopes at the same time:
> > > its own and the debuggee's.
> >
> > Could you expand on this?
>
> http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2001-02
> > see it.) The debugger must be able to see two scopes at the same time:
> > its own and the debuggee's.
>
> Could you expand on this?
http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2001-02/msg01613.html
for example.
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is th
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Johan Vromans wrote:
> Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Starting with 'P' is useful so we can keep our acronyms such as PMC and
>
> PERIL (hi Tom!).
>
> -- Johan
< ACCENT=ENGLISH>
Please, can't I have just a little PERIL?
< /AC
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Thanks much for putting this together. I do appreciate it.
You are most welcome. I enjoyed it, and I'm looking forward to
updating it (though I'm hoping there will be a little more feedback,
particularly concerning the new suggestions).
>
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>
> You list the particular commands as 'existing functionality'. I think
> this is a mistake, even if you didn't mean it that way, if it was just
> an artifact of your presentation format. I know that breaking
> debugging habits that have been i
Thanks much for putting this together. I do appreciate it.
At this stage, it might be better to go through and pull out the concepts
and capabilities we need, rather than get into the details of user
interface. Knowing, for example, that we need to provide help is more
important at this stage
At 09:16 AM 4/27/2001 -0400, Eric Roode wrote:
>Larry Wall wrote:
>
>[wrt multiple syntaxes for Perl 6]
> >
> >In any event, I'm not worried about it, as long as people predeclare
> >exactly which variant they're using. And I'm also not worried that
> >we'll have any lack of style police trying t
At 04:19 PM 4/26/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
>: And on the other hand you have things like Forth where every program
>: essentially defines its own variant of the language, and that works out
>: reasonably well. (Granted it's more of a niche language, especially today,
>: b
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:45:02AM -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
> I think many of us are resigned to losing . for concatination; I know
> I can live with that. I just don't want to have this result in ~, ^,
> or any other C-style punctuation operator getting renamed.
That's my position. I'd rath
Larry Wall wrote:
[wrt multiple syntaxes for Perl 6]
>
>In any event, I'm not worried about it, as long as people predeclare
>exactly which variant they're using. And I'm also not worried that
>we'll have any lack of style police trying to enforce Standard Perl 6.
>
>Larry
As a member of a con
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > How about borrowing from Objective C?
> > > >
> > > >[$object method("foo", "bar")];
> >
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 26 Apr 2001 23:19:49 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
>
> >$bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call
>
> $bar = method $obj()
>
> would be more consistent with perl's current
>
> $object = new Class()
>
> syntax.
Yes, well, some people wa
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 11:04:33PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:28:58AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 06:25:03PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > > In a sick way I kinda liked how compilers were able to give out error
> > > messages not u
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 04:46:48PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> And I'm tired of hearing the argument that Perl programmers can't get
> used to a different operator for concatenation. I know better--after
> all, Perl is probably what got them used to . in the first place. If
> you can teach dogs t
On 26 Apr 2001 23:19:49 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
>$bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call
$bar = method $obj()
would be more consistent with perl's current
$object = new Class()
syntax.
--
Bart.
26 matches
Mail list logo
