Sean M. Burke wrote in perl.pod-people :
>>>DWIM is vastly more important
>
> "Do what I mean". Perlese for "robustness".
This definition should in some perl jargon thesaurus :
DWIM - Do What I Meant. It describes Perl's sometimes uncanny ability
to do what you actually meant to do rather t
At 10:00 AM 2003-09-04 +0100, Mark Thornber wrote:
At 12:00 02/09/03, Sean M. Burke wrote:
DWIM is vastly more important
"Do what I mean". Perlese for "robustness".
--
Sean M. Burkehttp://search.cpan.org/~sburke/
At 12:00 02/09/03, Sean M. Burke wrote:
DWIM is vastly more important
DWIM ?
TIA
--
MarkT
=
E M Thornber CEng MIEE
Enchanted Systems Limited
Software Toolsmiths
+44 (0) 1503 272097
At 05:06 AM 2003-09-02 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Yeah, maybe. In general, I don't consider the rejection of "illegal"
forms
> to be a high priority for parser. DWIM is vastly more important.
DWIMness be built into the spec.
That is, to say the least, a foregone conclusion.
--
Sean M. B
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 03:00:19AM -0800, Sean M. Burke wrote:
> At 03:08 AM 2003-09-02 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >and the following is illegal because it contains only numeric items yet
> >does
> >not start at 1 and does not proceede consecutively nor in order.
> >[...]
> >But you just ch
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 01:07:47AM -0800, Sean M. Burke wrote:
> At 01:47 AM 2003-09-02 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >Would you agree to striking out the "Note that the numbers must start at 1
> >in
> >each section, and must proceed in order and without skipping numbers" rule
> >from the =ove
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:17:26AM -0800, Sean M. Burke wrote:
> At 07:00 PM 2003-08-21 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >Either way, what about the alternative formattings that don't appear to need
> >look-aheads?
> [namely:]
> >And if it doesn't have an ordered list starting at 1, simply treat i
At 03:08 AM 2003-09-02 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
and the following is illegal because it contains only numeric items yet does
not start at 1 and does not proceede consecutively nor in order.
[...]
But you just changed Pod::Simple to accept that without warning. Shouldn't
the spec be altered
At 01:47 AM 2003-09-02 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Would you agree to striking out the "Note that the numbers must start at 1 in
each section, and must proceed in order and without skipping numbers" rule
from the =over/=back spec for numeric =items?
No, because that's still true for numeric =it
