What about:
($var = 'succeeded') ||= 'failed';
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
Argh. Please disregard that last message as the ramblings of a
pre-caffeinated mind.
/s
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Dave Mitchell wrote:
$var ??= 'succeeded'
to provide a feeling for the weight of opinion, e.g., most
people felt this way, some people felt differently, etc.
One should trace back who was of what opinion. So my suggestion would be
Discussion: Foo feature
Want it:Person A, Person B, Person C, Person D
Reject it: Person E,
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Murat_=DCnalan?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:21:11 +0100
to provide a feeling for the weight of opinion, e.g., most
people felt this way, some people felt differently, etc.
One should trace back who was of what opinion. So my suggestion would be
Rick Delaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd also like to point out that ruby has defaults for hashes but
assigning nil (the equivalent of undef) does not set the default; delete
does.
Yeah, but Hashes aren't Arrays. And vice versa.
--
Piers
Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 14:54, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Can someone give me a realish world example of when you would want an
array that can store both undefined values and default values and those
values are different?
my @send_partner_email is
The idea of discussion summaries has been well received, so I'm going to
push forward with a few. I invite everyone here to join in.
The idea is *not* that Miko writes summaries of every thread. The idea is
that the proponent of an idea, or someone very interested in an idea,
writes a summary
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
The idea of discussion summaries has been well received, so I'm going to
push forward with a few. I invite everyone here to join in.
The idea is *not* that Miko writes summaries of every thread. The idea is
that the proponent of an idea, or someone very interested in an
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Buddha Buck wrote:
You suggest doing it in HTML. Wouldn't it make more sense to do it in
POD, the standard documentation language for Perl?
For now, since it's a web site, let's stick to HTML. If somebody just way
prefers POD, contact me off list and we'll figure out the
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
And how do these differ in concept to the RFC process Perl 6 has already
gone through? Wouldn't it make sense, assuming that clean, final
presentations of proposed ideas or features in Perl are useful, to
re-open the RFC process?
RFC's are proposals before the comments.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Buddha Buck wrote:
You are aware the that RFCs went through a revision process, and the
finalized RFCs that the Design Team are looking at are supposed to
include the final form of the idea after discussion, and a summary of
what was thought of it? Many of the RFCs
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:56:34AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
And how do these differ in concept to the RFC process Perl 6 has already
gone through? Wouldn't it make sense, assuming that clean, final
presentations of proposed ideas or features in Perl are useful, to
Sounds like a job for a bot!
(couldn't resist)
-- Gregor
Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
02/04/2003 11:38 AM
Please respond to duff
To: Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: Miko O'Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re:
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030202
Welcome to the second Perl 6 summary of the Copious Free Time era and
already I've broken the 'mailed out by Monday evening' promise. There
were reasons however, mostly to do with going down to London to do the
paperwork for my
13 matches
Mail list logo
