On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 10:25:24PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
> At 12:35 AM -0400 8/11/06, Stevan Little wrote:
> >Quick question for the group.
> >
> >Can there be more than one authority?
> >
> >module Foo-0.0.1-cpan:JRANDOM-http://www.foo.org-mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >S11 would seem to in
On 8/10/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, it's a design smell. The point of core is to huffman code common
things, so something in core with _ should normally either be shorter
or out of the core.
I don't think I agree. I've been programming in Ruby, and I
appreciate all the nice
At 12:35 AM -0400 8/11/06, Stevan Little wrote:
Quick question for the group.
Can there be more than one authority?
module Foo-0.0.1-cpan:JRANDOM-http://www.foo.org-mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
S11 would seem to indicate no (it states that names are made up of 3
parts), but I guess I am wondering
Quick question for the group.
Can there be more than one authority?
module Foo-0.0.1-cpan:JRANDOM-http://www.foo.org-mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
S11 would seem to indicate no (it states that names are made up of 3
parts), but I guess I am wondering if one of those parts can have
multiple sub-parts
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 10:17:59PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 06:21:31PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
: > At 5:11 PM -0700 8/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: > >Log:
: > >First whack at defining semantics of MAIN subs.
: >
: > Congradulations! That is SUCH a great
Author: larry
Date: Thu Aug 10 20:19:02 2006
New Revision: 10807
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
Removed last vestige of $?SELF from the spec.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/desig
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 06:21:31PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
> At 5:11 PM -0700 8/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Log:
> >First whack at defining semantics of MAIN subs.
>
> Congradulations! That is SUCH a great idea.
I agree! No more caller() tricks to see if we're being required or
not b
Author: audreyt
Date: Thu Aug 10 19:18:48 2006
New Revision: 10805
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
* Two small typo fix:
"value-bases comparison" -> "value-based comparison"
"Storeable" -> "Storable"
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
=
At 5:11 PM -0700 8/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Log:
First whack at defining semantics of MAIN subs.
Congradulations! That is SUCH a great idea.
Since Perl didn't have the concept of an explicit 'main' before like
many other languages, I had been doing this for a long while in my
non-tin
Author: larry
Date: Thu Aug 10 17:11:54 2006
New Revision: 10804
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Log:
First whack at defining semantics of MAIN subs.
Typo from Aaron Crane++.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
===
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 07:02:13PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Eric skribis 2006-08-10 10:22 (-0600):
: > I think .valid is an excellent argument for underscores all by itself.
:
: I think it's an argument for reconsidering the name of that method.
: "valueid" is only 2 characters more.
Okay, I'll just
Eric skribis 2006-08-10 10:22 (-0600):
> I think .valid is an excellent argument for underscores all by itself.
I think it's an argument for reconsidering the name of that method.
"valueid" is only 2 characters more.
I'm personally against non-prefix underscores in any core identifier.
I agree t
Author: audreyt
Date: Thu Aug 10 09:40:48 2006
New Revision: 10783
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Log:
* S03: Signature ~~ Signature now tests for compatibility,
i.e. whether if anything that can bind to LHS can also
bind to RHS.
* S06: The "want" f
Author: audreyt
Date: Thu Aug 10 09:35:52 2006
New Revision: 10782
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
Log:
* S04: Clarify that the following forms are hash composers:
$h = {};
$h = {%h};
* Also change the archaic $coderef etc in examples to
simply $code.
Modified: doc/trunk/d
I think .valid is an excellent argument for underscores all by itself.
Unless you already know what it means you don't have any clue that
its not actualy the word valid instead of val_id. I don't know of any
other problems like this, but at very least that should be changed.
Don't we still try an
Author: audreyt
Date: Thu Aug 10 09:16:15 2006
New Revision: 10780
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
* S02: Add a infix_prefix_meta_operator grammatical category to
carry the generic chain-associative negation modifier "!".
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
> +Some object types can behave as value types. Every object can produce
> +a "safe key identifier" (C for short) that uniquely identifies the
> +object for hashing and other value-base comparisons. Normal objects
Is that meant t
17 matches
Mail list logo
