[31228] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2473 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri Jun 12 00:09:53 2009
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Thu, 11 Jun 2009 Volume: 11 Number: 2473
Today's topics:
"my" suppresses "used only once" warnings jidanni@jidanni.org
Re: "my" suppresses "used only once" warnings <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
Re: compare two booleans for equality? sln@netherlands.com
Re: compare two booleans for equality? (Tim McDaniel)
Re: compare two booleans for equality? sln@netherlands.com
Re: compare two booleans for equality? <ben@morrow.me.uk>
Re: compare two booleans for equality? (Tim McDaniel)
Re: FAQ 4.59 How can I know how many entries are in a h <derykus@gmail.com>
Re: parse perl expression <ben@morrow.me.uk>
Re: parse perl expression sln@netherlands.com
Re: upgrade strwaberry perl <ben@morrow.me.uk>
Re: upgrade strwaberry perl <sisyphus359@gmail.com>
Re: upgrade strwaberry perl <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 04:38:36 +0800
From: jidanni@jidanni.org
Subject: "my" suppresses "used only once" warnings
Message-Id: <87hbym5wvn.fsf@jidanni.org>
Here we see "my" suppresses "used only once" warnings.
And I thought "my" was all good.
$ perl -we 'use diagnostics; $g=1; my $h=2;'
Name "main::g" used only once: possible typo at -e line 1 (#1)
(W once) Typographical errors often show up as unique variable names.
If you had a good reason for having a unique name, then just mention it
again somehow to suppress the message. The our declaration is
provided for this purpose.
NOTE: This warning detects symbols that have been used only once so $c, @c,
%c, *c, &c, sub c{}, c(), and c (the filehandle or format) are considered
the same; if a program uses $c only once but also uses any of the others it
will not trigger this warning.
What about $h? "perldoc -f my" doesn't warn about no warnings. Even
perlsub doesn't say...
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:23:40 GMT
From: "A. Sinan Unur" <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
Subject: Re: "my" suppresses "used only once" warnings
Message-Id: <Xns9C27E3D342F57asu1cornelledu@127.0.0.1>
jidanni@jidanni.org wrote in news:87hbym5wvn.fsf@jidanni.org:
> Here we see "my" suppresses "used only once" warnings.
> And I thought "my" was all good.
>
> $ perl -we 'use diagnostics; $g=1; my $h=2;'
> Name "main::g" used only once: possible typo at -e line 1 (#1)
> (W once) Typographical errors often show up as unique variable
> names. If you had a good reason for having a unique name, then
> just mention it again somehow to suppress the message. The our
> declaration is provided for this purpose.
>
> NOTE: This warning detects symbols that have been used only once
> so $c, @c, %c, *c, &c, sub c{}, c(), and c (the filehandle or
> format) are considered the same; if a program uses $c only once
> but also uses any of the others it will not trigger this warning.
The "used once" warning is useful for detecting things like (when you
are not using strict -- and you should use strict):
$STUPIDO = 1;
# 100 more lines
$STUPID0 = 0;
When you use strict, you have to declare the variables you use. If you
write:
my $STUPIDO = 1;
why should you get a warning? After all, you have explicitly told the
compiler, you want a variable named $STUPIDO. The same goes for
my $STUPID0 = 0;
If you use strict as you should, you will find out about typos:
use strict;
my $STUPIDO = 1;
# 100 more lines
$STUPIDO = 0;
Now, if you do
my $STUPIDO = 1;
# 100 more lines
my $STUPIDO = 0;
you will also get an appropriate message.
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
http://www.rehabitation.com/clpmisc/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:35:30 -0700
From: sln@netherlands.com
Subject: Re: compare two booleans for equality?
Message-Id: <3cq2351k2ar4qs77c9dtvvgj29me95j2of@4ax.com>
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:28:25 -0700, sln@netherlands.com wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:20:24 -0700, Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>[Replying to your post because Mr. sln is a permanent resident in my
>>killfile]
>>>sln@netherlands.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:48:58 +0100, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But this doesn't do what I want. There's a wide
>>>>> range of legal (and useful) values for the scalars,
>>>>> and they might well be different, but all represent "truth"
>>>>> or "falsehood".
>>>>>
>>>> The most modern, readable way of doing it is
>>>>
>>>> Truth:
>>>> if ( condition1 && condition1 == condition2)
>>>>
>>>> False:
>>>> if ( !condition1 && condition1 == condition2)
>>
>>If this is supposed to be Perl code, then it will yield a "Bareword not
>>allowed" error under strictures.
>>
>>If this is supposed to be pseudo-code, then you may want to state the
>>semantic and precedence rules of your operators.
>>Assuming same semantic and precedence as in Perl, then the second line
>>would be equal to
>>
>>if ( (!condition1) &&
>> (condition1 == condition2)
>> )
>>
>>where the OP already stated that the numerical equal (==) doesn't work
>>for boolean values because logical true and false can be represented by
>>numerous different scalar values. Actually it was this very observation
>>that started the whole thread.
>>
>>Of course I don't expect you to understand any of this.
>>
>>jue
>
>Thanks for pointing out the precedence parenth's, its the same as in pseudo-code btw.
>Although there is no need to wrap (!conditiona1) in parenths.
>
>It doesen't matter Perl or C (or most any language with logicals). Most
>have notion of a range of 'true/false', even though some are more type
>constrained (like won't compile in C++).
>
>Yes, I thought the OP already went through his 'boolean' machine, thats why I
>used his variable names in pseudo-code.
>
>The fact of the matter is, its not enough to know that varaiables are equal
>or not equal in a boolean sense in everyday use. That doesen't tell you anything
>at all.
>
>So (!$foo == !$bar) tells you that they are equivalent boolean wise.
>
>My point is it can take it to a higher, more usefull level, by determining
>thier boolean equavalence and truth or falsehood.
>
>So ( $foo && (!$foo == !bar) ) is the fastest way to determine (code execution wise)
>if they are BOTH TRUE.
Actually not true.
$foo && $bar - fastest, both TRUE
!$foo && !$bar - fastest, both FALSE.
Sorry.
-sln
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:42:06 +0000 (UTC)
From: tmcd@panix.com (Tim McDaniel)
Subject: Re: compare two booleans for equality?
Message-Id: <h0rq6u$e5h$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <vn85g6-ta51.ln1@osiris.mauzo.dyndns.org>,
Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> wrote:
>What has puzzled me is that while there are both bitwise '^' and
>low-prec 'xor' forms, there's no high-prec logical '^^' form. It just
>seems a curious ommission. I guess at some point somebody thought
>that the concept of 'logical XOR' was sufficiently obscure that it
>ought to be written out in words.
I wonder whether it was merely because C didn't have it? Or maybe
because || and && are short-circuited, but logical XOR cannot be, and
therefore ^ may have been seen as good enough when the operands are 0
and 1? (Has someone already mentioned (!operand1 ^ !operand2)?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tangent:
In Googling, I ran across this at <http://perlcabal.org/syn/S03.html>,
apparently describing Perl 6:
infix:<^^>, short-circuit exclusive-or
$a ^^ $b ^^ $c ...
Returns the true argument if there is one (and only one). Returns
Bool::False if all arguments are false or if more than one
argument is true. In list context forces a false return to mean
(). See xor below for low-precedence version.
This operator short-circuits in the sense that it does not
evaluate any arguments after a 2nd true result. Closely related is
the reduce operator:
[^^] a(), b(), c() ...
but note that reduce operators are not macros but ordinary list
operators, so c() is always called before the reduce is done.
What does "This operator short-circuits in the sense that it does not
evaluate any arguments after a 2nd true result." mean? In the
expression
$a XOR $b XOR $c XOR $d XOR $e
where XOR is my representation of the concept of logical XOR, you
can't determine the value of the expression without evaluating all 5
arguments.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Even more tangent:
I also ran across <http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/periodic/>.
Periodic Table of the Operators
Being a comprehensive and complete enumeration of the Operatic
Elements of the Perl 6 Language, assembled and drawn with
dedication and diligence by M. Lentczner as a service to both the
Community and the Republic.
May this simple presentation with various illustrative devices
increase Knowledge & Understanding amongst practitioners in the
art of Software.
Third Edition, February 14th, Two Thousand Nine
OK, I didn't mind APL, but this makes me shudder. I am DEFINITELY
going to write in a small subset of Perl 6.
--
Tim McDaniel, tmcd@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:31:48 -0700
From: sln@netherlands.com
Subject: Re: compare two booleans for equality?
Message-Id: <qjt2351k2ar4qs77c9dtvvgj29me95j26l@4ax.com>
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:42:06 +0000 (UTC), tmcd@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>In article <vn85g6-ta51.ln1@osiris.mauzo.dyndns.org>,
>Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> wrote:
>>What has puzzled me is that while there are both bitwise '^' and
>>low-prec 'xor' forms, there's no high-prec logical '^^' form. It just
>>seems a curious ommission. I guess at some point somebody thought
>>that the concept of 'logical XOR' was sufficiently obscure that it
>>ought to be written out in words.
>
>I wonder whether it was merely because C didn't have it? Or maybe
>because || and && are short-circuited, but logical XOR cannot be, and
>therefore ^ may have been seen as good enough when the operands are 0
>and 1? (Has someone already mentioned (!operand1 ^ !operand2)?)
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Tangent:
>In Googling, I ran across this at <http://perlcabal.org/syn/S03.html>,
>apparently describing Perl 6:
>
> infix:<^^>, short-circuit exclusive-or
>
> $a ^^ $b ^^ $c ...
Is this irrelavent? Does this produce a new heretofore unknown
cpu op instruction? Shouldn't we expect our lang opperata's to mirror
the cpu at its core instructions without abreviations?
-sln
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:23:52 +0100
From: Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk>
Subject: Re: compare two booleans for equality?
Message-Id: <ooc8g6-r39.ln1@osiris.mauzo.dyndns.org>
Quoth tmcd@panix.com:
>
> Tangent:
> In Googling, I ran across this at <http://perlcabal.org/syn/S03.html>,
> apparently describing Perl 6:
>
> infix:<^^>, short-circuit exclusive-or
>
> $a ^^ $b ^^ $c ...
>
> Returns the true argument if there is one (and only one). Returns
^^^^^^^
> Bool::False if all arguments are false or if more than one
^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> argument is true. In list context forces a false return to mean
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> (). See xor below for low-precedence version.
>
> This operator short-circuits in the sense that it does not
> evaluate any arguments after a 2nd true result. Closely related is
<snip>
>
> What does "This operator short-circuits in the sense that it does not
> evaluate any arguments after a 2nd true result." mean? In the
> expression
>
> $a XOR $b XOR $c XOR $d XOR $e
>
> where XOR is my representation of the concept of logical XOR, you
> can't determine the value of the expression without evaluating all 5
> arguments.
According to the definition above, you can:
True XOR True XOR Any XOR Any
is False. Clearly you and Perl 6 have different idea about how XOR
associates :).
<snip>
[Perl 6's host of operators, most Unicode]
>
> OK, I didn't mind APL, but this makes me shudder. I am DEFINITELY
> going to write in a small subset of Perl 6.
Well, yes. I rather doubt *anyone* is going to write in more than a
small subset of Perl 6: it must be one of the 'largest' languages ever
designed.
Ben
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:36:47 +0000 (UTC)
From: tmcd@panix.com (Tim McDaniel)
Subject: Re: compare two booleans for equality?
Message-Id: <h0s4ef$b8r$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <ooc8g6-r39.ln1@osiris.mauzo.dyndns.org>,
Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> wrote:
>
>Quoth tmcd@panix.com:
>>
>> Tangent:
>> In Googling, I ran across this at <http://perlcabal.org/syn/S03.html>,
>> apparently describing Perl 6:
>>
>> infix:<^^>, short-circuit exclusive-or
>>
>> $a ^^ $b ^^ $c ...
>>
>> Returns the true argument if there is one (and only one). Returns
> ^^^^^^^
>> Bool::False if all arguments are false or if more than one
> ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> argument is true. In list context forces a false return to mean
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> (). See xor below for low-precedence version.
>>
>> This operator short-circuits in the sense that it does not
>> evaluate any arguments after a 2nd true result. Closely related is
><snip>
>>
>> What does "This operator short-circuits in the sense that it does not
>> evaluate any arguments after a 2nd true result." mean?
>
>According to the definition above, you can:
>
> True XOR True XOR Any XOR Any
>
>is False.
The loud *SLAP* you heard from the direction of Austin was me slapping
my forehead. I am so VERY sorry that I didn't read that sentence.
It was ridiculously careless of me.
Is there another language that has such a definition?
>Clearly you and Perl 6 have different idea about how XOR associates
Hrm! Does
A ^^ B ^^ C ^^ ... ^^ X
match any non-trivial parenthesization of the same expression?
I'm not used to normal-looking operators that can't be parenthesized.
For pure XOR, a binary operator that returns true only if its two
operands have different truth values, does it matter in what order you
evaluate a longer non-parenthesized expression?
--
Tim McDaniel, tmcd@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anonymous <derykus@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FAQ 4.59 How can I know how many entries are in a hash?
Message-Id: <a0bb3860-b1e5-4a38-959f-143aaa4b22a7@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 10, 1:30=A0am, brian d foy <brian.d....@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnh2o5lh.28vp.wil...@snail.stack.nl>, Willem
>
> <wil...@snail.stack.nl> wrote:
> > jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
> > ) PerlFAQ Server <br...@stonehenge.com> writes:
> > )> 4.59: How can I know how many entries are in a hash?
>
> f you mean ALL the entries, even recursively, then try e.g.,
>
> > )
> > ) use Data::Walk; #from CPAN
> > ) my $count =3D 0;
> > ) walkdepth( sub {$count++;}, %HoH );
> > ) print "count=3D$count\n";
>
> > There's nothing F about the A-ing of that Q.
>
> As I noted to jidanni in private email, the code doesn't even work.
> The Data::Walk module doesn't have any way to tell you how many
> keys it saw. It would take a lot of surgery to give it that capability.
> ...
Here's some surgery:
use Data::Walk;
my %HoH =3D ( ... );
my %seen;
my $count =3D 0;
walk {
wanted=3D>sub{
if ( defined $Data::Walk::type
and $Data::Walk::type eq "HASH" ) {
$count +=3D keys %{$Data::Walk::container}
unless $seen{$Data::Walk::container}++;
}
}
}, %HoH;
print "total key count: $count\n";
--
Charles DeRykus
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:40:42 +0100
From: Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk>
Subject: Re: parse perl expression
Message-Id: <aod8g6-oi9.ln1@osiris.mauzo.dyndns.org>
Quoth david <michaelgang@gmail.com>:
> I have an perl expression which i have to examine (not to run).
>
> for example:
>
> ($obj->fun1(x,y,z) || ($obj->fun2(x,y,z) && $obj->fun3('a') || ($obj-
> >fun4 && $obj->fun5))
> (Please don't count the number of parentheses :-).)
>
> My question is how could i parse this expression so that i'll get a
> list like this
>
> $obj->fun1(x,y,z),
> $obj->fun2(x,y,z)
> $obj->fun3('a')
> $obj->fun4
> $obj->fun5
> The hierarchy is less important. I need just the operators.
> I fear to use regexps (i know them but i am not a wizard in it)
> because in the arguments there could be also parentheses.
Fortunately there are modules to do this sort of thing for you.
use Regexp::Common;
my $str = <<'PERL';
($obj->fun1(x,y,z) || ($obj->fun2(x,y,z) && $obj->fun3('a') ||
($obj->fun4 && $obj->fun5))
$obj->fun6($obj->fun7(foo(bar(baz), (quux), ())))
PERL
print for $str =~ m{ (
\$\w+ \s*->\s* \w+\s*
$RE{balanced}?
) }gx;
__END__
$obj->fun1(x,y,z)
$obj->fun2(x,y,z)
$obj->fun3('a')
$obj->fun4
$obj->fun5
$obj->fun6($obj->fun7(foo(bar(baz), (quux), ())))
Notice how the ->fun7 call is not extracted separately, since it's
inside the ->fun6 call. If this is a problem you will need to tweak the
pattern, or apply it again to the extracted parts.
Ben
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:03:45 -0700
From: sln@netherlands.com
Subject: Re: parse perl expression
Message-Id: <2pd3359scksg3cik9nv7r420nm9im1bihp@4ax.com>
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:40:42 +0100, Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> wrote:
>
>Quoth david <michaelgang@gmail.com>:
>> I have an perl expression which i have to examine (not to run).
>>
>> for example:
>>
>> ($obj->fun1(x,y,z) || ($obj->fun2(x,y,z) && $obj->fun3('a') || ($obj-
>> >fun4 && $obj->fun5))
>> (Please don't count the number of parentheses :-).)
>>
>> My question is how could i parse this expression so that i'll get a
>> list like this
>>
>> $obj->fun1(x,y,z),
>> $obj->fun2(x,y,z)
>> $obj->fun3('a')
>> $obj->fun4
>> $obj->fun5
>> The hierarchy is less important. I need just the operators.
>> I fear to use regexps (i know them but i am not a wizard in it)
>> because in the arguments there could be also parentheses.
>
>Fortunately there are modules to do this sort of thing for you.
>
> use Regexp::Common;
>
> my $str = <<'PERL';
> ($obj->fun1(x,y,z) || ($obj->fun2(x,y,z) && $obj->fun3('a') ||
> ($obj->fun4 && $obj->fun5))
> $obj->fun6($obj->fun7(foo(bar(baz), (quux), ())))
> PERL
>
> print for $str =~ m{ (
> \$\w+ \s*->\s* \w+\s*
> $RE{balanced}?
> ) }gx;
>
> __END__
>
> $obj->fun1(x,y,z)
> $obj->fun2(x,y,z)
> $obj->fun3('a')
> $obj->fun4
> $obj->fun5
> $obj->fun6($obj->fun7(foo(bar(baz), (quux), ())))
>
>Notice how the ->fun7 call is not extracted separately, since it's
>inside the ->fun6 call. If this is a problem you will need to tweak the
>pattern, or apply it again to the extracted parts.
>
>Ben
Unfortunately you pigeonholed the text. You CANNOT
parse perl documents like this. See PPI.
Nice try though.
-sln
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:44:30 +0100
From: Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk>
Subject: Re: upgrade strwaberry perl
Message-Id: <evd8g6-oi9.ln1@osiris.mauzo.dyndns.org>
Quoth "A. Sinan Unur" <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>:
> david <michaelgang@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:bdc43b5f-0127-4fa5-b4b4-d51d9a965a00@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I have strawberry perl version 5.10.4 and want to upgrade to version
You do? Can I borrow your time machine?
(I think you perhaps mean 5.10.0.4. 5.10.1 is due to be released
shortly.)
> > 5. Is there any way to upgrade without reinstalling all modules ?
>
> Save the contents of the relevant subdirectories under
>
> C:\strawberry\perl\site\lib
For completeness (I'm sure Sinan knows this): this only applies when you
are upgrading to a binary-compatible version of perl, which nowadays
always means versions with the same second version digit. So upgrading
from one build of 5.10.0 to another, or from 5.10.0 to 5.10.1 is OK;
upgrading from 5.10 to 5.12 (when it's out) will require rebuilding
everything.
Note that you can use the CPAN 'autobundle' command to rebuild
everything for you.
Ben
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: sisyphus <sisyphus359@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: upgrade strwaberry perl
Message-Id: <6ef05740-e5c6-4ff9-bbb4-66a4ace91d0b@o5g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 12, 2:55=A0am, "A. Sinan Unur" <1...@llenroc.ude.invalid> wrote:
> Save the contents of the relevant subdirectories under
>
> C:\strawberry\perl\site\lib
Is it necessary to do that ?
I would expect that installing 'over the top' of the existing
installation would clobber *only* those existing files that need to be
overwritten, and everything else would remain intact.
I guess it's safer to keep a backup copy of the site\lib folder
somewhere, in case my expectations are not realised :-)
Cheers,
Rob
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:30:04 GMT
From: "A. Sinan Unur" <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
Subject: Re: upgrade strwaberry perl
Message-Id: <Xns9C27DABCA89EEasu1cornelledu@127.0.0.1>
sisyphus <sisyphus359@gmail.com> wrote in news:6ef05740-e5c6-4ff9-bbb4-
66a4ace91d0b@o5g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 12, 2:55 am, "A. Sinan Unur" <1...@llenroc.ude.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Save the contents of the relevant subdirectories under
>>
>> C:\strawberry\perl\site\lib
>
> Is it necessary to do that ?
I don't think so, but I did not try. I am not sure if the installer
first removes everything (although I would assume it would at least
leave stuff under site which was not originally installed by the
installer). In any case, saving the stuff means david will be safe,
regardless.
> I would expect that installing 'over the top' of the existing
> installation would clobber *only* those existing files that need to be
> overwritten, and everything else would remain intact.
>
> I guess it's safer to keep a backup copy of the site\lib folder
> somewhere, in case my expectations are not realised :-)
Thanks for reading my mind ;-)
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
http://www.rehabitation.com/clpmisc/
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
#The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
#comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
#the single line:
#
# subscribe perl-users
#or:
# unsubscribe perl-users
#
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
NOTE: due to the current flood of worm email banging on ruby, the smtp
server on ruby has been shut off until further notice.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
#To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
#where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
#For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
#perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
#sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
#answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V11 Issue 2473
***************************************
