On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 04:08:00PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> i can see things changing very easily. but to me, how perl handles
> overflow is a language semantic as much as implementation. in 5 it is
> well defined (ilya not withstanding) and you are talking bigint stuff
> which scares me. i don
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 08:31:07AM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Simon Cozens writes:
> > Why does string C have to screw everything up?
>
> It doesn't. String eval is the escape hatch from a language that
> can't do what you want it to do. As such it's okay for it to be
> slow--consider it
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 08:23:07PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Having had cause to root around in the archives of perl6 and perl5 lists,
> can I suggest that we use the system that perl5-porters is archived on in
> preference to the system that the perl6 lists use (MHonArc, apparently).
> Perso
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 02:15:25PM +1100, iain truskett wrote:
> * Daniel Chetlin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [29 Sep 2000 14:10]:
> > My RFC is predicated on the notion that perl5 will look enough like
> > perl6 that we won't have to rewrite all of the docs, and thus
> > there
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 11:04:47PM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 07:56:49PM -0700, Daniel Chetlin wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:56:44AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > > Why isn't there a documentation w/g? Yes, this is a hint.
> >
>
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:56:44AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Why isn't there a documentation w/g? Yes, this is a hint.
My RFC 240 garnered exactly 0 responses, so there doesn't seem to be
much of an interest. I was trying to decide today whether I should
freeze or withdraw.
-dlc
I know it's unfair to comment on a frozen RFC, but I think it's
important to note a few things:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:22:30AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> Maintainer: J. David Blackstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Status: Frozen
[snip]
> Dubbed the "conservative" approach by Mark-Jason
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 07:20:44PM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
> Tom Christiansen wrote:
> > Steve Fink wrote:
> > >% perl -we '$x = 3; $v = "x"; eval "\$$v++"'
> > >Name "main::x" used only once: possible typo at -e line 1.
> >
> > Non sequitur. And no, I don't have time.
>
> It is relevant in that
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 01:52:47PM +0100, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >What I'd like to see us avoid is the current situation where trying
> >to examine the value of an SV in the debugger is all but impossible
> >for anybody other than a minor god.
>
> W
On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 07:35:24PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > > > $a[$i][$j][$k] or $a[$i,$j,$k]
>
> > The second one has no useful meeting, "," is just an operator which
> > does nothing much useful in this context.
>
> Not true, at least not in the Perl I know. :-) Here's a description of
>
On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 03:46:59PM -0400, Eric Roode wrote:
> Nat wrote:
> >5.6's regular expressions have (??{ ... }) to permit recursion and
> >$^R to maintain state through the parsing.
>
> In another thread, Tomc wrote:
> >[...] Likewise the @+ and @- stuff.
>
> Okay, I'm throwing my ignor
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 11:43:04PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:21:00 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall wrote:
If you want to save the world, come up with a better way to say "www".
(And make it stick...)
[snip of other possibilities]
> the variation i learned somewhere was
12 matches
Mail list logo
