--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| SUMMARY
| By default, regexes shouldn't untaint. Also, provide a
| toolkit for Safer Untainting.
| ...
| Ergo, I propose that regexes only untaint stuff in parens
| if you specifically tell them to do so. A capital-T
| switch would work nicely
__CODE__
#!/usr/bi
--- David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/6/02 11:43 PM, "Damian Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
>
> >> / $2:=(.*?), \h* $1:=(.*) /
> >>
> >> Does this imply that $1, $2, etc are now read-write outside of regexen?
> >
> > No.
>
> Maybe this is a RTFM question, but does
> The binary image should represent the interpreters
> internal state and the compiled bytecode, as straight
> as possible.
Internal state is a problem.
> example:
>
> if (my $binary = hibernate) {
> print "Feelin sleepy... Good Night.";
> save_to_disk($binary, "~/myscript.pl.sleeps");
>
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> > Damian said:
> > > 6. C would seem to fit the bill rather nicely.
> >
> > To me, "otherwise" is a synonym for "else", and that makes it too
> > confusingly similar. I foresee forever explaining to people the differen
> > I still don't like the idea of Cs on loops. I already do an
> > instant double take with C of "Where's the if?" (with visions of
> > old Wendy's commercials dancing in my head).
>
> Me too. That's why the looping "else" should be spelled "otherwise"
> IMHO.
If a loop produced a boolean val
> > How about the JIT engine then.
>
> JIT runs on bytecode, producing bytecode.
>
> > When does parrot use it?
>
> Before executing bytecode.
>
> > how well does it scale? ( has anyone done some benchmarking )
>
> Don't ask me :P If you haven't already, then you'd
> be best looking at the b
> Where in the parrot code does the actual translation
> from byte code to binary code occur?
Parrot eq. an interpreter, all the byte codes are like
commands to tell it what actions to take... it doesn't
directly take byte codes and turn them into binary code.
Conversion would be compiling, but
> > I'm I beating this point to death, or do I have to write
> > the RPC:
> >
> > "Keep the {} and [] notation for hashes and arrays"
> >
> > or
> >
> > "Save our array!"
>
> Let's boil this RFC down to one short phrase:
>
> If {} goes away in Perl6, then everything you've heard
> about Perl6
> >> but wait, there's more... what does:
> >>
> >> @multi_dim[$a][$b][$c]
> >>
> >> give?
> >
> >Who cares? So long as the intermediate results in
> >@multi_dim.[$a].[$b].[$c] respond to [].
>
> Hrm. Will they need to? That could arguably pass a three
> element key ($a,$b,$c) to @multi_dim w
> > but wait, there's more... what does:
> >
> > @multi_dim[$a][$b][$c]
> >
> > give?
>
> It's representation hiding. I can change my layout from hashes to arrays
> without the clients of my code having to know. :)
>
> Seriously, the above argument might actually hold some merit when changing
>
> I know this is going pretty far back in the design process, but I was
> wondering why we're using curlies for hash subscripts, now that the %
> sticks around when you key it. Then curlies could only two
> things : Anonymous hash making and closure making. Maybe it's just too
> much culture s
> >> : Piers Cawley writes:
> >> : ...
> >> : The trouble is, unless Perl6 is going to be guaranteed to do
> >> : optimization of tail calls, this is going to lead to horribly slow
> >> : code. So, do I bite the bullet and recast some of the functions in an
> >> : iterative vein, or do I trust t
> : Piers Cawley writes:
> :
> : So, here I am working on a Scheme interpreter in Perl 6, and I'm
> : trying to write it in a (for want of a better description)
> : 'Scheme-like' fashion with lots of recursion.
> :
> : The trouble is, unless Perl6 is going to be guaranteed to do
> : optimization
> On 1/27/02 9:57 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > I can't help thinking that requiring quotes will
> > make it all nice and consistent, and completely
> > zap all these edge cases.
>
> Well, it'll sure make the subset of Perl programmers
> who have always quoted hash subscripts anyway (like
> me - us
Hi,
This is already handled in Perl 5 - which I guess will have
an influence on Perl 6. I doubt Larry is going to force
everyone to quote the hash subscripts (are you Larry? :)
Let a newish (6 < now < 12 months) non professional
(unemployed student ;) Perl programmer, like myself, look
at how h
[Note: I've resent this - since apparently it never made it
to the list. Can someone please complain offlist if they
did get the previous one?]
>
> >Damian Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> >
> >You *could* instead consider reversing the arguments to
> all the list
> >manipulation ope
>
> >Damian Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> >
> >You *could* instead consider reversing the arguments to
> all the list
> >manipulation operators:
> >
> > @result = map @data { mapping() }
> > @result = grep @data { selector() };
> > @result = sort @data { comparison() };
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
