On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 03:44:25PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Dan Sugalski writes:
> : I hadn't really considered having a separate module for each type of site
> : policy decision.
>
> Er, neither had I. Each site only has one policy file. I just want it
> named after the actual site, not som
> If I work at OReilly, I don't need a Local:: in front of my
> OReilly to tell me that it's a local namespace.
but you need "OReilly" in front? do you label your clothes "Shirt" and
"Pants" as well? might be orthagonal but the top level should serve
a useful purpose instead of something along th
Damian Conway wrote:
> If it's a policy, it should go under Policy::
If it's an OReilly site module, it should go under OReilly, eh?
What's general and what's specific is entirely a matter of
perspective, since "OReilly" and "Policy" are entirely
orthogonal concepts.
> Surely you wouldn't condo
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 05:06:03PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> OReilly::Policy is (or might be) still general before
> specific. OReilly::* might be a whole family of site-
> specific modules.
Policy::* is *guaranteed* to be a large family of site-specific modules,
hopefully even larger than th
> > You Americans and your non-ISO penchant for putting the specific before
> > the general. Surely that should be:
> >
> > use Policy::O::Reilly;
>
> I knew someone would argue that, but I didn't think it would
> be someone as illustrious as Damian.
Illustrious???
Damian Conway wrote:
> You Americans and your non-ISO penchant for putting the specific before
> the general. Surely that should be:
>
> use Policy::O::Reilly;
I knew someone would argue that, but I didn't think it would
be someone as illustrious as Damian.
Do you think Larry doesn't kn
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Unfortunately, the perl6-language archive doesn't seem to go back far
> enough to cover the .perlrc discussion. Is the old archive still
> around?
don't know which archive you are talking about, but
http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language%40p
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 12:20:42PM -0700, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> don't know which archive you are talking about, but
> http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language%40perl.org/ should have
> all mails sent to perl6-language from it's start to a few days ago
> when I moved stuff around.
I think
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 12:49:28PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 05:37 PM 4/29/2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >By "optional" I take it you mean an admin can choose to define their
> >own site policy or not?
>
> No. Optional in that you have to do a "use SomePolicyThingWeHaventDecided;"
At 05:37 PM 4/29/2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:44:24AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 04:30 PM 4/29/2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > >To use a Perl 5 example, consider the simple setting of "use strict"
> > >as a general site policy. Basicaly, most of
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:44:24AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 04:30 PM 4/29/2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >To use a Perl 5 example, consider the simple setting of "use strict"
> >as a general site policy. Basicaly, most of the Perl code in your
> >/usr/bin will explode when you try
At 04:30 PM 4/29/2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 02:44:17PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Well, I was thinking that generally the site policy would be expressed
> in a
> > single file
>
>This smells strangely familiar. Alot like the .perlrc discussion that
>was had
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 02:44:17PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Well, I was thinking that generally the site policy would be expressed in a
> single file
This smells strangely familiar. Alot like the .perlrc discussion that
was had back many moons ago. The havoc a general syntax-altering
polic
At 03:44 PM 4/28/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
>: I hadn't really considered having a separate module for each type of site
>: policy decision.
>
>Er, neither had I. Each site only has one policy file. I just want it
>named after the actual site, not some generic name like
Dan Sugalski writes:
: I hadn't really considered having a separate module for each type of site
: policy decision.
Er, neither had I. Each site only has one policy file. I just want it
named after the actual site, not some generic name like "Policy". I
think policy files are inherently non-p
At 01:51 PM 4/27/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:> use OReilly::Policy;
:>
:> or
:>
:> use Mongolian::Navy::ProcurementOffice::Policy;
:>
:> might be more in order.
:
: You Americans and your non-ISO penchant for putting the specific before
: the general. Surely that should be:
:
> I think we have to be careful here. We should ask people to name site
> policy files after their site, and not use a generic name like
> "site_policy", since we'd be likely to end up with 20 different
> "standard" site_policy files wandering around the net. So something
> like
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
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
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
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
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
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 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 unlike:
> >
> > foo.ada: line 231: Violation of sections 7.8.3, 9.11.5b and
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 unlike:
>
> foo.ada: line 231: Violation of sections 7.8.3, 9.11.5b and 10.0.16: see the LRM.
Ever used the Mac C compiler?
--
"Language shap
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 04:13:30PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Eric Roode writes:
> : John Porter wrote:
> : >IIUC, this ability is precisely what Larry was saying Perl6 would have.
> :
> : I may have my history wrong here, but didn't Ada try that?
>
> Not at all. The syntax of Ada was nailed do
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,
: but that's probably more due to its RPN syntax)
P
Eric Roode writes:
: John Porter wrote:
: >IIUC, this ability is precisely what Larry was saying Perl6 would have.
:
: I may have my history wrong here, but didn't Ada try that?
Not at all. The syntax of Ada was nailed down tighter that almost any
language that ever existed.
: Super-flexible,
John Porter wrote:
>
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> The one downside is that you'd have essentially your own private language.
>> Whether this is a bad thing or not is a separate issue, of course.
>
>IIUC, this ability is precisely what Larry was saying Perl6 would have.
I may have my history wrong her
At 01:36 PM 4/25/2001 -0400, Eric Roode wrote:
>John Porter wrote:
> >
> >Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >> The one downside is that you'd have essentially your own private
> language.
> >> Whether this is a bad thing or not is a separate issue, of course.
> >
> >IIUC, this ability is precisely what Larry
34 matches
Mail list logo
