Re: Expunge implicit @_ passing

2001-08-27 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 06:02:50PM -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote: > From: Ken Fox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Michael G Schwern wrote: > > > Any time you want to implicitly pass @_, you can just as easily > > > *explicitly* pass it or use goto. > > goto does screw up caller... so I wouldn't say

Re: Expunge implicit @_ passing

2001-08-27 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 06:50:35PM -0400, Ken Fox wrote: > Michael G Schwern wrote: > > Any time you want to implicitly pass @_, you can just as easily > > *explicitly* pass it or use goto. > > I never thought of using goto actually. "goto &$method;" actually > looks clearer than the code I'm usi

RE: Expunge implicit @_ passing

2001-08-27 Thread Garrett Goebel
From: Ken Fox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Michael G Schwern wrote: > > Any time you want to implicitly pass @_, you can just as easily > > *explicitly* pass it or use goto. goto does screw up caller... so I wouldn't say *anytime* > I never thought of using goto actually. "goto &$method;" actua

Re: Expunge implicit @_ passing

2001-08-27 Thread Ken Fox
Michael G Schwern wrote: > Any time you want to implicitly pass @_, you can just as easily > *explicitly* pass it or use goto. I never thought of using goto actually. "goto &$method;" actually looks clearer than the code I'm using. (Although with re-directors we want to minimize cost so the 10% p

Re: Expunge implicit @_ passing

2001-08-27 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 10:48:55AM -0400, Ken Fox wrote: > Michael G Schwern wrote: > > I can't think of any reason why this feature is useful anymore, and it > > can be a really confusing behavior, so what say we kill it in Perl 6? > > I've always thought is was pretty useful for implementing ge

Re: Expunge implicit @_ passing

2001-08-27 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 10:58:00AM -0400, John Porter wrote: > You can, with C< goto &$foo; >. > Problem is, it's *slower* (in p5 anyway) than the plain sub call. By only 10%. Let's keep things in proportion here. -- Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ P

Re: Expunge implicit @_ passing

2001-08-27 Thread Piers Cawley
Ken Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Michael G Schwern wrote: > > I can't think of any reason why this feature is useful anymore, and it > > can be a really confusing behavior, so what say we kill it in Perl 6? > > I've always thought is was pretty useful for implementing generic > redirectors.

Re: Expunge implicit @_ passing

2001-08-27 Thread John Porter
Ken Fox wrote: > The only thing I'd like to change is to make &foo a tail call instead > of a normal function call. But I guess that would *really* confuse > people. You can, with C< goto &$foo; >. Problem is, it's *slower* (in p5 anyway) than the plain sub call. -- John Porter A word spoken i

Re: Expunge implicit @_ passing

2001-08-27 Thread Ken Fox
Michael G Schwern wrote: > I can't think of any reason why this feature is useful anymore, and it > can be a really confusing behavior, so what say we kill it in Perl 6? I've always thought is was pretty useful for implementing generic redirectors. I wrote a frame system that allows instances to

Re: Something to hash out

2001-08-27 Thread gbouris
>On Win32, file extensions get cut off after 3 characters. So a ".html" >file is actually the same as a ".htm" file, I think. This isn't true George Bouris

Re: Something to hash out

2001-08-27 Thread Bart Lateur
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:58:50 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: >I was using .pas and .pac. Gotta think about 8.3ness, unfortunately. The "8" might not be that relevant nowadays, but the "3" still matters. On Win32, file extensions get cut off after 3 characters. So a ".html" file is actually the same a