On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 09:14:51AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 07:19:31PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> : I'm guessing that the statement at S06:2362 is an artifact of
> : an earlier draft that didn't have the section on MAIN subroutines,
> : but I'm wanting to verify th
Sex, 2008-11-14 às 09:14 -0800, Larry Wall escreveu:
> That's correct. We could fix it two ways. Either the mainline code
> gets a consistent new name, or the outermost scope is redefined to an INIT
> if there is a user-defined MAIN. I can argue it both ways.
I'd argue that there's an implicit
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 01:50:59PM -0500, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> WHat *is* the outermost scope in that case? When is code in that scope
> executed? I could see this as being a hack to allow a module to be used
> either directly as a main, or "use"d; the former ignoring top level scop
On 2008 Nov 14, at 12:14, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 07:19:31PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: S06:2362 says:
:
: You can get the current routine name by calling C<&?
ROUTINE.name>.
: (The outermost routine at a file-scoped compilation unit is
always
: named C<&
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 07:19:31PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: S06:2362 says:
:
: You can get the current routine name by calling C<&?ROUTINE.name>.
: (The outermost routine at a file-scoped compilation unit is always
: named C<&MAIN> in the file's package.)
:
: Is this the sam
S06:2362 says:
You can get the current routine name by calling C<&?ROUTINE.name>.
(The outermost routine at a file-scoped compilation unit is always
named C<&MAIN> in the file's package.)
Is this the same MAIN that is described later in
"Declaring a MAIN subroutine"? It seems like t
