Eryq wrote:
> And all that I am saying is that this syntactic complication,
> this special case where "the filehandle name *is* the object",
> should be gotten rid of. Unlike some other special Perl syntactic
> constructs (e.g., regular expressions, "here-is" documents),
> the current filehandl
> "NC" == Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NC> $htdoc = open uri "http://www.yahoo.com" or die;
NC> with uri in the standard library
NC> and also make it easy to stack the module that does uri at the top of 'file'
NC> so that the default is to call the uri stuff.
Is it just me, but
Let's table this discussion, please. There are two different concerns
here:
1. IO::Handle et al *are* too damn big and slow.
2. Bareword filehandles *are* a pain to deal with.
Perl 5.6 already has a lot of this solved by allowing lexically-scoped
variables to hold filehandles. We should
I will never, ever, ever possibly begin to process all this mail.
It's completely impossible. I have three days before I leave the
country for three weeks, and nothing is done. Therefore, my answer
to you will be short and underdone. One can type on p6 lists *all*
day and get no nearer to closu
Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> > * Have to use ugly globref syntax to pass them around reliably.
>
> No, you don't. You can use globs. But only if you don't have
> prototypes, like sub opt(*).
I would argue that many Perlers don't use prototypes.
Whether they should or not is another issu
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 08:26:26AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Hildo Biersma wrote:
> >
> > > Personally I hated it. And I distinctly remember saying so. And I
> > > still hate it.
> >
> > I dislike it too. URIs are a user-space matter and should not be
> > built-in to the language - put it in
Hildo Biersma wrote:
>
> > Personally I hated it. And I distinctly remember saying so. And I
> > still hate it.
>
> I dislike it too. URIs are a user-space matter and should not be
> built-in to the language - put it in a module. And if you have an OS
> that implements URIs directly, well then
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:43:05 -0600, Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not think you two are arguing about the same thing.
>
> Certainly as Bart has shown, formats *can* see lexicals. Your
> illustration does not disprove that. It simply shows that lexical
> scoping is static sc
>> >perl5 formats do NOT support lexicals
>>
>> Eh? It looks like it, though.
>>
>> my $foo;
>> format STDOUT =
>> @>>>
>> $foo
>> .
>>
>> $foo = 123;
>> write;
>> $foo = 45;
>> write;
>>
>> It looks *so much* that way, that I think you must be
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:49:25 +0200, Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:57:49 +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>
> >perl5 formats do NOT support lexicals
>
> Eh? It looks like it, though.
>
> my $foo;
> format STDOUT =
> @>>>
> $foo
> .
Hildo Biersma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > =head1 NOTES ON FREEZE
> > >
> > > The only comments received were on my crappy examples, which have been
> > > clarified. Everyone seemed to like the idea.
> >
> > Personally I hated it. And I distinctly remember saying so. And I
> > still hate it
> > =head1 NOTES ON FREEZE
> >
> > The only comments received were on my crappy examples, which have been
> > clarified. Everyone seemed to like the idea.
>
> Personally I hated it. And I distinctly remember saying so. And I
> still hate it.
I dislike it too. URIs are a user-space matter and sh
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:57:49 +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>perl5 formats do NOT support lexicals
Eh? It looks like it, though.
my $foo;
format STDOUT =
@>>>
$foo
.
$foo = 123;
write;
$foo = 45;
write;
It looks *so muc
Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITLE
>
> Embed full URI support into Perl
>
> =head1 VERSION
>
> Maintainer: Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 14 Aug 2000
> Last-Modified: 1
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:41:04 -0700, Glenn Linderman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) do perl6 formats need to have exactly the same scoping rules as perl5
> formats in this regard?
perl5 formats do NOT support lexicals, so this is not a very interesting
question. (Re-)implementation of formats in
15 matches
Mail list logo
