On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 12:57:07AM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:26:09AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 05:13:23PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > This one not only modifies its arguments (or $_ when called without),
> > it also has t
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 04:28:08PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Aliasing again. They keys are copies, the values aliases.
How bizarre? Why does it work that way?
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
"None of our men are "experts."... because no on
> "MGS" == Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MGS> On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 04:28:08PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Aliasing again. They keys are copies, the values aliases.
MGS> How bizarre? Why does it work that way?
well, my take is that it works for the same reaso
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 12:59:53PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 04:28:08PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Aliasing again. They keys are copies, the values aliases.
>
> How bizarre? Why does it work that way?
keys HASH returns copies of the keys, while values HA
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:16:52 -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> o The architecture-interrogation primitives are inadequate; there is no
> robust way to ask ``am I running on Windows'' or ``am I running on
> Unix.''
>
>**We have $^O, but it requires parsing every time**
Uhm, I'm
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:42:43 -0700, root wrote:
>I read RFC195 suggesting to drop 'chop' and go with 'chomp'.
>What does 'chop' have anything to do with 'chomp'?
>I'm totally oppose to that. Consider:
>
>my $s;
>map { /\S/ && $s .= "$_ " } split(/\s+/,@_);
>chop($s);
>return $s;
Excuse me, but y
Today around 10:19pm, Bart Lateur hammered out this masterpiece:
: I, too, once used chop() to get the last character of a string, in my
: case to calculate a barcode check digit.
:
: while(my $digit = chop($barcode)) {
: ...
: }
:
: The while loop should have continued un
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 10:07:55PM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
> Uhm, I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. You cannot distinguish
> between Windows 95/98/ME on one side, and NT/2k on the other, using $^O
> alone. After all, $^O is just a constant burnt into the executable when
> perl was compiled.
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 08:56:33PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 10:07:55PM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
> > Uhm, I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. You cannot distinguish
> > between Windows 95/98/ME on one side, and NT/2k on the other, using $^O
> > alone. After all,
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 11:54:13PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> The desire to know the name of the runtime platform is a misdirected desire.
> What you really want to know is whether function Foo will be there, what
> kind of signature it has, whether file Bar will be there, what kind of
> fo
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 01:08:21AM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 11:54:13PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > The desire to know the name of the runtime platform is a misdirected desire.
> > What you really want to know is whether function Foo will be there, what
> >
Jarkko Hietaniemi writes:
> > True, but you can't do any of all that without knowing the platform
> > accurately (nontrivial and requires core mod or XS). Once that's
> > done, the rest is just a matter of extending File::Spec
> > (trivial and pure Perl).
>
> Trivial? *cough* *snigger*
If it w
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:10:31AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> Trivial? *cough* *snigger*
I'd write it up for you right now, but its too big to fit in the
margin.
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
I've heard that semen tastes different depen
13 matches
Mail list logo
