On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:01:39 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone actually used a language which has run-time warnings on by
default? Or even know of one?
Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as forgiving
as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as forgiving
as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal error in those
languages.
Examples? I know you're not
Sam Tregar wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, an unhandled exception in Java is death for the program.
Yup. So all (potentially) exceptions are "fatal errors"? Well, that
definition fits "almost meaningless" pretty well, in my opinion!
Not exactly. Java defines two clases of
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as
forgiving
as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal error in
At 09:36 AM 2/22/2001 +, David Grove wrote:
This is what's scaring me about all this talk about
exceptions... it can break this mold and make Perl into a "complainer
language" belching up uncaught (don't care) exceptions forcing try/except
blocks around every piece of IO or DB handling. The
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...
The basic usefulness of warnings is not in question. This is about
the *perception* of their utility. Warnings are only useful if the
user heeds them. The question is, will having them on by default make
the user more or less
At 10:48 AM 2/22/2001 +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as forgiving
as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal error in
Has anyone actually used a language which has run-time warnings on by
default? Or even know of one?
--
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kwalitee Is Job One
Are we still having this discussion? :-)
At 07:23 PM 2/21/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its true alot languages would consider many of Perl's warnings to be
errors, that's not really analgous to what we're talking about here.
Run-time errors aren't quite in the same spirit as run-time
Its true alot languages would consider many of Perl's warnings to be
errors, that's not really analgous to what we're talking about here.
Run-time errors aren't quite in the same spirit as run-time warnings.
A run-time error is something the language defines as being explicitly
bad or a mistake
Can you give me an example of the former?
I can't think of any off the top of my head.
Scalar value @foo[$bar] better written as $foo[$bar], for one.
If part of Perl's breeding is autovivication and interpretation of undef as
0 or "" in the appropriate context, why should Perl
At 05:27 PM 2/19/01 +, Piers Cawley wrote:
Peter Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't want to DWIM this. Would it be so bad to have to type
GetOptions (foo = \my ($foo),
bar = \my $bar);
If you're really all for maintainability, then surely you mean:
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and John Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] whispered
:
| Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that
| the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG.
I don't know that I would say time immemorial. It wasn't in the man for
4.036. I can only find man
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 14:45, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and John Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
whispered
:
| Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that
| the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG.
I don't know that I would say time
Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
And there's a difference between warnings originating because something has
gone wrong and those originating because I'm doing something particularly
perlish. Unfortunately, -w doesn't (and probably can't) tell the
difference.
Can you give me an example of the
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 16:03, John Porter wrote:
Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
And there's a difference between warnings originating because something
has
gone wrong and those originating because I'm doing something
particularly
perlish. Unfortunately, -w doesn't (and probably
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:31:35 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
Scalar value @foo[$bar] better written as $foo[$bar], for one.
I agree on this one (hash slices too), if this expression is in list
context. There is no error in
@r = map { blah } @foo{$bar};
--
Bart.
What it boils down to is, warnings are for perl to tell you
when you probably made a logic error, based on the perl code
it sees. What some people might think is merely unperlish
code, others might say is "horribly wrong".
--
John Porter
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:33:50PM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 19:34, Edward Peschko wrote:
Well, for one, your example is ill-considered. You are going to get
autovivification saying:
The two ideas were disjoint. The example wasn't an example of
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 22:03, Edward Peschko wrote:
I *like* the interpretation of undef as 0 and "". It's useful.
Sometimes.
Sometimes it's not. And that's fine.
No that's NOT fine. It leads to 'find the needle in the haystack' sort of
problems. If you get 1450 'use of undef
This isn't an addition to the language that you're talking about - it's
changing some of the fundamental behavior of the language. It's saying
that no longer is Perl a loose, powerful language - oh, you want BD? well,
we can do that for you too - but rather that Perl is just another
Peter Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 09:01 PM 2/15/01 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:08:47AM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
However, that still doesn't get rid of the gotchas - personally I think that:
my $a, $b, $c;
should be an error, a warning,
John Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As someone else said before me, Perl should not be changed
Just Because We Can. Aspects which have proven usefulness and
are deeply engrained in the Perl mindset should not be tampered
with just because some recent convert finds them un-Algol-like.
Johan Vromans wrote:
If a Perl construct does not suffer from a slight change that makes
it easier to accept by new programmers, I think such changes should
be seriously considered.
Yes; but the world if full of language [sorry, couldn't resist]
which is optimized (or at least meant to be)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@a = (1 .. 10);
$a, $b, $c = @_;
$c becomes 10. Should $c become 3 when my is placed before $a?
No. If my binds weaker than =, it would be
my $a, $b, $c = @_;
is the same as
my $a, $b, ($c = @_);
as the opposite of
(my $a, $b, $c) = @_;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
tie (my $shoe) = $string;
Not enough arguments for tie...
tie +(my $shoe) = $string;
This is the same as would happen to `print', for example. Or else, the
easyer
tie my($shoe) = $string;
It doesn't look like a function, so it isn't.
Ah, more
Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
On Friday 16 February 2001 07:36, Branden wrote:
But it surely isn't
consistent with the rest of the language.
It's consistent with "our" and "local", which are really the only other
things in the language that parallel its use.
Well, `local' is actually the
I said:
Anyway, I don't see why `local' (and `our' and `my') should bind more
strongly than , and = . They are list operators, they should behave the
same
as those.
Actually, they *look like* list operators, they should behave like those.
- Branden
On Friday 16 February 2001 09:24, Branden wrote:
I said:
Anyway, I don't see why `local' (and `our' and `my') should bind more
strongly than , and = .
Because the implicit global scope declarator binds that tightly.
Because you lose the ability to mix scope declarators in an assigment.
(my
Nathan Wiger wrote:
Let alone that this:
my $x, $y, $z;
Doesn't DWIM, again according to what most people think.
Come on. What's so hard about knowing
( $x, $y, $z )
is a bunch of variables, and
my( $x, $y, $z )
is a bunch of variables declared local.
Answer: nothing.
Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
Oh, wait, commas are now implicitly parenthesized, so that
(my $a, $b, $c) = @_;
can be written as
my $a, $b, $c = @_;
Oh! I never said commas are implicitly parenthesized! That was other
proposal. I don't think it works, because
$a, $b, $c = @_;# $c
Branden wrote:
Anyway, I don't see why `local' (and `our' and `my') should bind more
strongly than , and = . They are list operators, they should behave
the same as those.
"In general, perl does what you want -- unless what you want is
consistency." The point is that consistency is NOT the
Edward Peschko wrote:
NOTE: to perl5 users - by default, perl is doing more up-front error checking.
To get the old behavior, you can say 'perl -q' in front of your scripts,
Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that
the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG.
So
John Porter wrote:
Come on. What's so hard about knowing
( $x, $y, $z )
is a bunch of variables, and
my( $x, $y, $z )
is a bunch of variables declared local.
Answer: nothing.
If you see some code saying
my $a, $b, $c;
Would you say $b and $c are subject to a different scoping rule
On Friday 16 February 2001 11:20, Branden wrote:
proposal. I don't think it works, because
$a, $b, $c = @_;# $c gets 10 for @_=(1..10)
mean a different thing that
my $a, $b, $c = @_; # $c gets 3 for @_=(1..10)
It does?
The last code should behave as
my
On Friday 16 February 2001 11:38, Branden wrote:
(my($a),our($b),local($,),my($c)) = @_;
What is it, anyway? A joke? (There's Perl poetry, why can't be there Perl
jokes?) Who writes this kind of code anyway?
Okay, you caught me, it was a contrived exampled. The actual code was
John Porter wrote:
It turns
out that 'my' having higher precedence than comma is signficantly
more useful than if it had a lower precedence.
Well, for me, it isn't useful, unless you can show me I'm wrong. At least
give me an example that shows it's more useful this way.
Let's all just
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:20:43PM -0300, Branden wrote:
`my' DWIMs.
`my' will do what *you* mean at the cost of every single existing perl
programmer that currently uses it to relearn what it means. Not a
good trade off IMHO.
I'd rather `my' does what *I* mean which is what it does now.
I
Simon Cozens wrote:
John, settle down. None of us profess to be fantastic language designers,
which is why we gave Larry the job. That being done, I'm not entirely sure why
people are continuing to argue about these things. :)
You're right, of course. I should have faith that Larry
will
John Porter wrote:
Having `my' with the same precedence rules as `print' for example,
'my' is not 'print', it is not like 'print', is not comparable
to 'print'. Please stop with the bogus comparisons.
Agree they're different (one is compile-time, other runtime, and much more
At 09:56 AM 2/16/2001 -0500, John Porter wrote:
As for the -q thing, I think it is far *less* of a burden to add "use
strict" and "use warnings" when you're writing a big piece of code. When
you're writing 5 lines, every extra character counts. When you're
writing 500 or 5000 lines, 2
Well, I'll try to reach to an agreement here, since this discussion is
getting pretty much pointless.
What do we know:
a) Many of us want Perl to have globals as default, what is opposed to some
that want `use strict' and `-w' turned on by default.
b) Some of us (that would be me, I think) think
Branden wrote:
As to the second item b), I would say I withdraw my complaints about `my' if
my other proposal of `use scope' gets approved (since then I don't need `my'
anymore!). I guess I would be happier with `use scope', and I also think it
would make you happier, since it wouldn't
FOR
---
1. It becomes more consistent with other Perl functions
my is not a function. It is a declaration. Functions take arguments
and return values. my does not. It is language construct like if.
Unless, of course, you claim that if is a function, too. That
ways lies LISP.
Nathan Wiger wrote:
I wouldn't be so hasty to withdraw from the my binding argument. There's
many uses of "my" that are required even with the "use scope" pragma (at
least as I described it in RFC 64, but feel free to point it out if I
missed an application). I think there's some good
Branden wrote:
a) Many of us want Perl to have globals as default, what is opposed to
some that want `use strict' and `-w' turned on by default.
You are profoundly confused.
Globals *are* the default in current perl; and having strict 'vars'
on does not magically change that.
strict 'subs',
Nathan Wiger wrote:
To rehash, all this discussion should involve is the possibility of
making "my" swallow its list args:
my $x, $y, $z; # same as my($x, $y, $z)
That's it. No changing the way lists and , and = work in Perl.
But they are inextricably bound by perl's parsing rules.
You
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:45:21PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
But they are inextricably bound by perl's parsing rules.
Perl 5's parsing rules. I don't think Perl 6 *has* a parser just yet.
You can't keep Perl6 Perl5.
See?
--
What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from
This just isn't making sense.
Currently one has to write
my( $x, $y, $z ) = @_;
And you're willing to eviscerate perl to save two keystrokes;
you say you'd be happy with either
my $x, $y, $z = @_;
or
( $x, $y, $z ) = @_;
but the (consequent) fact that
$x,
Simon Cozens wrote:
John Porter wrote:
But they are inextricably bound by perl's parsing rules.
Perl 5's parsing rules. I don't think Perl 6 *has* a parser just yet.
As someone else said before me, Perl should not be changed
Just Because We Can. Aspects which have proven usefulness and
Why with `my' I do need them? Why don't these behave the same?
Because the precedence is different.
Remember, 'my' is a lexical construct.
It does not "return" a value, and it does not
take "arguments" -- not in the runtime sense.
It applies only to literal variable symbols.
It is meaningless
First of all, sorry to bother you again with this issue, but I guess it
didn't have the appropriate discussion. If you're not interested, please
don't read further...
I wrote:
I expect Perl 6 will have some way to define its variables as being
lexical-scoped in the sub they are used as
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:40:53PM -0300, Branden wrote:
I propose the introduction of two new keywords (just like `my' and `our')
for specifying a different scope: `global' and `outer'. `global' would be
used to say that a specific variable or a list of them would refer to the
global
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:40:53PM -0300, Branden wrote:
I propose the introduction of two new keywords (just like `my' and
`our')
for specifying a different scope: `global' and `outer'. `global' would
be
used to say that a specific variable or a list of them
Branden wrote:
Well, I checked the archives, and I found that the discussion begun in
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01441.html
That thread was rather tame; even so, I believe the end result,
if one can be deduced, is that the proposal is not a good one.
There was more heated discussion in the
John Porter wrote:
Well, first let me say why I think a way (pragma) to do lexical-scope by
default (for one file/block/scope) would be good. Most (modern)
languages do
it
This is false. Even languages in which lexical variables are the
norm still require a variable declaration; it's not
At 01:15 PM 2/15/01 -0500, John Porter wrote:
my $a, $b, $c;# only $a is lexically scoped
RTFM.
Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be given
the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that functions
taking list arguments that
At 04:38 PM 2/15/2001 -0300, Branden wrote:
Yeah. Beginners. I was one too. And I remember always falling on these...
But that's OK, since we probably don't want any new Perl programmers...
I've skipped pretty much all this thread so far, but I do need to point out
that perl isn't targeted at
Branden wrote:
Take PHP and Python, for example.
O.k., that's two out of the three modern languages.
That's "most". Sorry, I stand corrected.
Silly beginner gotchas. It's not an inconsistency of the
language by any means.
Yeah. Beginners. I was one too. And I remember always falling
Take PHP and Python, for example.
my $a, $b, $c;# only $a is lexically scoped
RTFM.
my ($a) = FHANDLE; # after deducing (by the above) . . .
# when I wanted only the first line.
Silly beginner gotchas. It's not an
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 04:38 PM 2/15/2001 -0300, Branden wrote:
Yeah. Beginners. I was one too. And I remember always falling on
these...
But that's OK, since we probably don't want any new Perl
programmers...
I've skipped pretty much all this thread so far, but I
Peter Scott wrote:
At 01:15 PM 2/15/01 -0500, John Porter wrote:
my $a, $b, $c;# only $a is lexically scoped
Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be given
the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that functions
taking list
Edward Peschko wrote:
Tell me one. I couldn't find it.
The main problem I see is cross checking. I *like* having to declare
things as
'my' - it catches my errors for me:
my $variable;
$varaible = 1; # mis-spelled - caught by 'use strict'.
Still would be able to do it with `use strict'.
"Peter" == Peter Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be
Peter given the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that
Peter functions taking list arguments that omit their parentheses swallow up
Peter the
Branden wrote:
If you had this 'use scope' pragma, this auto-error checking would be
compromised severely.
Actually, I think sometimes it can be done with -w (``Variable xyz used only
once, probably spelling error'').
Except that only applies to un-declared variables, which currently
John Porter wrote:
Branden wrote:
Well, I checked the archives, and I found that the discussion begun in
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01441.html
That thread was rather tame; even so, I believe the end result,
if one can be deduced, is that the proposal is not a good one.
There was more
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:49:44AM -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Peter" == Peter Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be
Peter given the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that
Peter functions
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:23:10AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
I agree with this statement. Perhaps someone who was around during the
initial 'my' discussions can shed some light on why it binds so tightly.
I have observed you can do something like this:
my $OUTER = '';
if (
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:44:24AM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be given
the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that functions
taking list arguments that omit their parentheses swallow up the following
Still would be able to do it with `use strict'. My proposal isn't going to
replace it! As it didn't replace the default global variables! As I said, I
don't want you to use it or even like it, I'm only wanting YAWTDI.
Right, but your approach isn't going to help in the cases where it is
Branden wrote:
There was more heated discussion in the thread rooted at
http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-language@perl.org/msg01089.html
the discussion of RFC 16.
Well, actually, I read that, and it pretty much discusses making `strict'
default or not (which I believe is not), but I
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 12:25:44PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
well, I was thinking about this - there really should be an extra switch that
makes this possible, rather than typing 'no strict; no warn;' ie:
#!/usr/local/bin/perl -q # for quick and dirty.
We already have a switch that means
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 12:25:44PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
well, I was thinking about this - there really should be an extra switch that
makes this possible, rather than typing 'no strict; no warn;' ie:
At 12:43 PM 2/15/01 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 12:25:44PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
well, I was thinking about this - there really should be an extra
switch that
makes this possible, rather
And in any case, make '-e' have the additional connotation that implies
'no strict', and 'no warn'.
no 'warnings'
thanks. 'no warnings'
Seems simple enough to me.
Yes, that's what I thought; but this has generated more heat than light, at
least on the times I've brought it up, e.g.,
At 01:03 PM 2/15/01 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00025.html
Well, I agree with pretty much everything you said, except I like '-q' better
than '-z' for aesthetic reasons.
So... what was the rationale against it?
Best read the archives... I am the wrong person to ask
Peter Scott wrote:
And in any case, make '-e' have the additional connotation that implies
'no strict', and 'no warn'.
no 'warnings'
Seems simple enough to me.
Yes, that's what I thought; but this has generated more heat than light, at
least on the times I've brought it up, e.g.,
So... what was the rationale against it?
Best read the archives... I am the wrong person to ask for a statement of
the opposing viewpoint...
hey... I'm a lazy guy.. ;-) So - I guess coming from someone who holds the
opposing viewpoint, what was it?
Ed
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 08:19:27PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:05:55PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:23:10AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
But I have never found a situation where this is so useful to justify
the other problems it
If I have:
(my $foo1, $bar1) = (my $foo2, $bar2) = ("foo", "bar");
then '(my $foo1, $bar1)' is in void context, while '(my $foo2, $bar2)'
isn't.
Do you really want them to behave differently?
best way to shoot down my suggestion is an example where existing behaviour
can't be
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:03:21PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
If I have:
(my $foo1, $bar1) = (my $foo2, $bar2) = ("foo", "bar");
then '(my $foo1, $bar1)' is in void context, while '(my $foo2, $bar2)'
isn't.
Do you really want them to behave differently?
best way to
[resent to perl6-language, sorry for any duplicates]
Edward Peschko wrote:
I personally think that this is something Larry is going to have to
decide. However, I would like to note that leaving these off by default
lowers the transition curve to Perl 6 immensely for those people that
It was suggested to DWIM when I use my in void context, and not when
my isn't used in void context. With the above example, such a rule
would mean '$bar1' is my()ed, and '$bar2' isn't. That's IMO, very hard
to explain, very hard to bugtrack and totally unexpected. Even if not
everyone uses
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:02:10PM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
If we're interested in increased CPAN quality, there's a bunch of stuff
we can do.
See also, CPANTS (totally vaporware, but its a plan)
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00148.html
Heck, I'd even volunteer to head up a project to do
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:07:51PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
Also, if I have:
@a = (1 .. 10);
$a, $b, $c = @_;
How about 'an implicit parens around a set of statements separated by commas
in any context'? This is consistent
$a, $b, $c = $d, $e, $f; # ($a, $b, $c) =
At 09:01 PM 2/15/01 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:08:47AM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
However, that still doesn't get rid of the gotchas - personally I think
that:
my $a, $b, $c;
should be an error, a warning, or DWIM. Especially:
Personally, I don't
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:29:33PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 08:19:27PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:05:55PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:23:10AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
But I have never found a
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:54:37PM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Edward Peschko wrote:
Right, but what I don't understand is that its two extra characters at the end
of a command line... whats the big deal about typing '-q' on one line in
scripts? Its easy enough to advertise '-q' and put it
On Thursday 15 February 2001 19:21, Edward Peschko wrote:
How many times have I wanted to put 'use strict' in a module and
forgotten
about it?
Then it isn't, technically, a perl problem.
How many times have I wanted to use '-w' but was not able to because
of all the junk that comes out
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:32:01AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:07:51PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
Also, if I have:
@a = (1 .. 10);
$a, $b, $c = @_;
How about 'an implicit parens around a set of statements separated by commas
in any
I guess this was what was meant by 'put your asbestos gloves on'.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 07:57:31PM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
On Thursday 15 February 2001 19:21, Edward Peschko wrote:
How many times have I wanted to put 'use strict' in a module and
forgotten
about it?
Then it
I expect Perl 6 will have some way to define its variables as being
lexical-scoped in the sub they are used as default, either by the language
default, or by a pragma, as `use scope "subs"; ', as it's proposed in RFC
64.
If that's the case, I wonder how closures will be done, since having
Branden foobar wrote:
I expect Perl 6 will have some way to define its variables as being
lexical-scoped in the sub they are used as default, either by the language
default, or by a pragma, as `use scope "subs"; ', as it's proposed in RFC
64.
If that's the case, I wonder how closures will
93 matches
Mail list logo
