[31595] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2854 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri Mar 5 14:09:35 2010
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:09:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Fri, 5 Mar 2010 Volume: 11 Number: 2854
Today's topics:
Re: How can I write "print $F[4] if exists $F[4]" even <devnull4711@web.de>
Re: How can I write "print $F[4] if exists $F[4]" even sln@netherlands.com
Re: How can I write "print $F[4] if exists $F[4]" even <jimsgibson@gmail.com>
Re: How can I write "print $F[4] if exists $F[4]" even <uri@StemSystems.com>
Re: How can I write "print $F[4] if exists $F[4]" even sln@netherlands.com
Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc? <jl_post@hotmail.com>
Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc? <jl_post@hotmail.com>
Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc? <sherm@debian.shermpendley.com>
Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc? <sherm@debian.shermpendley.com>
Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc? <john@castleamber.com>
Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc? <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc? <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc? <sherm@debian.shermpendley.com>
Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc? <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc? <john@castleamber.com>
Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc? <john@castleamber.com>
Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc? <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Re: Process between paragraphs in perl <nickli2000@gmail.com>
Re: strange behavior <darkon.tdo@gmail.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:59:29 +0100
From: Frank Seitz <devnull4711@web.de>
Subject: Re: How can I write "print $F[4] if exists $F[4]" even simpler?
Message-Id: <7vca11Fj56U1@mid.individual.net>
Ben Morrow wrote:
> Quoth Frank Seitz <devnull4711@web.de>:
>>
>> my @a;
>> $a[1] = 4711;
>> $a[4] = 4712;
>>
>> for (my $i = 0; $i < @a; $i++) {
>> printf "%d %s\n",$i,exists $a[$i]? 'filled': 'empty';
>
> WRONG. You mean 'defined'. Whether an element responds to 'exists' or
> not depends on whether memory has been allocated to hold that element
> yet, which is not generally something you can predict.
In my understanding an array element "exists", when I assigned a
value to it, otherwise not.
my @a;
$a[1] = 4711;
$a[3] = undef;
$a[4] = 4712;
print "exists:\n";
for (my $i = 0; $i < @a; $i++) {
printf " %d %s\n",$i,exists $a[$i]? 'filled': 'empty';
}
print "defined:\n";
for (my $i = 0; $i < @a; $i++) {
printf " %d %s\n",$i,defined $a[$i]? 'filled': 'empty';
}
__END__
exists:
0 empty
1 filled
2 empty
3 filled
4 filled
defined:
0 empty
1 filled
2 empty
3 empty
4 filled
I get what I expect. Where is the problem?
Frank
--
Dipl.-Inform. Frank Seitz
Anwendungen für Ihr Internet und Intranet
Tel: 04103/180301; Fax: -02; Industriestr. 31, 22880 Wedel
Blog: http://www.fseitz.de/blog
XING-Profil: http://www.xing.com/profile/Frank_Seitz2
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 07:47:26 -0800
From: sln@netherlands.com
Subject: Re: How can I write "print $F[4] if exists $F[4]" even simpler?
Message-Id: <9q82p5phtfctdsk9vvtfd3je86lt6vfvjo@4ax.com>
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:59:29 +0100, Frank Seitz <devnull4711@web.de> wrote:
>Ben Morrow wrote:
>> Quoth Frank Seitz <devnull4711@web.de>:
>>>
>>> my @a;
>>> $a[1] = 4711;
>>> $a[4] = 4712;
>>>
>>> for (my $i = 0; $i < @a; $i++) {
>>> printf "%d %s\n",$i,exists $a[$i]? 'filled': 'empty';
>>
>> WRONG. You mean 'defined'. Whether an element responds to 'exists' or
>> not depends on whether memory has been allocated to hold that element
>> yet, which is not generally something you can predict.
>
>In my understanding an array element "exists", when I assigned a
>value to it, otherwise not.
>
Yes, exists() is more the an elements memory state: initialized or not.
Defined'nes is the state of the elements value. And it can be possible
that it is not defined, whether it exists or not.
For arrays, existence is a test to determine if it has ever been touched
as opposed to defined'nes when acting on its value.
People think exists is just a test for hash keys, but it is very usefull
when randomly indexing an array and perhaps it needs to get the air
taken out of it, or something else distinguishing between initialized
and defined.
-sln
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:51:51 -0800
From: Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: How can I write "print $F[4] if exists $F[4]" even simpler?
Message-Id: <050320100951514457%jimsgibson@gmail.com>
In article <7vca11Fj56U1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Seitz
<devnull4711@web.de> wrote:
> Ben Morrow wrote:
> > Quoth Frank Seitz <devnull4711@web.de>:
> >>
> > WRONG. You mean 'defined'. Whether an element responds to 'exists' or
> > not depends on whether memory has been allocated to hold that element
> > yet, which is not generally something you can predict.
>
> In my understanding an array element "exists", when I assigned a
> value to it, otherwise not.
>
> my @a;
> $a[1] = 4711;
> $a[3] = undef;
> $a[4] = 4712;
>
> print "exists:\n";
> for (my $i = 0; $i < @a; $i++) {
> printf " %d %s\n",$i,exists $a[$i]? 'filled': 'empty';
> }
> print "defined:\n";
> for (my $i = 0; $i < @a; $i++) {
> printf " %d %s\n",$i,defined $a[$i]? 'filled': 'empty';
> }
> __END__
> exists:
> 0 empty
> 1 filled
> 2 empty
> 3 filled
> 4 filled
> defined:
> 0 empty
> 1 filled
> 2 empty
> 3 empty
> 4 filled
>
> I get what I expect. Where is the problem?
One problem would be that your expectations might differ from those of
others, including mine. In your scenario, I would expect that, since
the normal meaning of "array" is a contiguous set of members, that
$a[0] and $a[2] would 'exist', since an array of length 5 needs to be
allocated to hold $a[4], and $a[5] would not 'exist'. However, the
exists function does not yield what I would expect:
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
my @a;
$a[1] = 1;
$a[3] = undef;
$a[4] = 4;
for( my $i = 0; $i <= 5 ; $i++ ) {
printf " %d %s\n", $i,
( $a[$i] ? 'filled' :
( defined $a[$i] ? 'defined' :
( exists $a[$i] ? 'exists':
'non-existent' )));
}
_OUTPUT_
0 non-existent
1 filled
2 non-existent
3 exists
4 filled
5 non-existent
I would have expected 'exists' for elements 0 and 2 and 'non-existent'
only for 5.
--
Jim Gibson
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:25:50 -0500
From: "Uri Guttman" <uri@StemSystems.com>
Subject: Re: How can I write "print $F[4] if exists $F[4]" even simpler?
Message-Id: <877hpq62xd.fsf@quad.sysarch.com>
>>>>> "JG" == Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> writes:
JG> my @a;
JG> $a[1] = 1;
JG> $a[3] = undef;
JG> $a[4] = 4;
JG> for( my $i = 0; $i <= 5 ; $i++ ) {
JG> printf " %d %s\n", $i,
JG> ( $a[$i] ? 'filled' :
0 would fail that and be defined but not filled. i would print all three
possible states for each entry to really get the picture.
JG> ( defined $a[$i] ? 'defined' :
JG> ( exists $a[$i] ? 'exists':
JG> 'non-existent' )));
JG> }
JG> _OUTPUT_
JG> 0 non-existent
JG> 1 filled
JG> 2 non-existent
JG> 3 exists
JG> 4 filled
JG> 5 non-existent
JG> I would have expected 'exists' for elements 0 and 2 and 'non-existent'
JG> only for 5.
remember, exists tests arrays for where any allocation occured. this
makes sense in some way. preallocating an array only allocates the
slots, not the SV's that go into them. even assigning undef to a slot
allocated storage for the SV. so defined will pass on an empty slot OR a
slot assigned undef. only exists will tell if the slot was ever assigned
to.
my @a;
$a[1] = 0;
$a[3] = undef;
$a[4] = 4;
foreach my $i ( 0 .. $#a ) {
print "$i: ", exists $a[$i] ? 'exists ' : '',
defined $a[$i] ? 'defined ' : '',
$a[$i] ? 'true' : '',
"\n" ;
}
0:
1: exists defined
2:
3: exists
4: exists defined true
note that [3] exists but isn't defined. it was allocated with an SV
holding undef. [0] and [2] were never allocated so they don't even
exist.
now for the news that keys will work on arrays in 5.12. will it just
create a list of the full indices? or only those indices that exist?
also will each() now work on arrays? that will solve the age old (mostly
newbie) request to get the index AND value from iterating over a
list. p6 solves this with the .kv method/accessor which returns an
index/value pair. each() would be similar to this in returning the next
index/value pair as it does for hashes. something like this would be
cool:
while( my( $i, $val ) = each( @array ) ) {
of course you better not modify the array length during this.
maybe changing values would be allowed ($val should be an alias if
possible to the element).
uri
--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:50:20 -0800
From: sln@netherlands.com
Subject: Re: How can I write "print $F[4] if exists $F[4]" even simpler?
Message-Id: <28j2p5tl72fv7ocu01vvdjbsusfrd750mi@4ax.com>
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:51:51 -0800, Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:
>One problem would be that your expectations might differ from those of
>others, including mine. In your scenario, I would expect that, since
>the normal meaning of "array" is a contiguous set of members, that
>$a[0] and $a[2] would 'exist', since an array of length 5 needs to be
>allocated to hold $a[4], and $a[5] would not 'exist'. However, the
>exists function does not yield what I would expect:
>
>#!/usr/local/bin/perl
>
>use strict;
>use warnings;
>
>my @a;
>$a[1] = 1;
>$a[3] = undef;
>$a[4] = 4;
>
>for( my $i = 0; $i <= 5 ; $i++ ) {
> printf " %d %s\n", $i,
> ( $a[$i] ? 'filled' :
> ( defined $a[$i] ? 'defined' :
> ( exists $a[$i] ? 'exists':
> 'non-existent' )));
>}
>
>_OUTPUT_
>
> 0 non-existent
> 1 filled
> 2 non-existent
> 3 exists
> 4 filled
> 5 non-existent
>
>I would have expected 'exists' for elements 0 and 2 and 'non-existent'
>only for 5.
When you "initialize" an element, either hash or array, it goes into
existence, not before.
Even though you can do
@array;
$array[100] = undef;
elements 0-99 are not initialized. However, the size of the array
springs up to 101 elements, of which only element 101 is initialized.
Hash's aren't based on continuous numeric indexes so the phrase
"exists" is more appropriate to hash's than arrays.
For arrays, the need to know if elements have been initialized, does have
its place separate from defined, and therefore should be thought of as
value initialization.
Hash and array elements don't exist until they are initialized.
I believe the below statement to be true (but can't say for sure):
The actual @array is just a header that maintains slot information
(pointers) for elements as they are "initialized", when the actual
memory allocation for the data occurs.
So, think exists for hashes, initialized for arrays.
-sln
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 08:22:50 -0800 (PST)
From: "jl_post@hotmail.com" <jl_post@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc?
Message-Id: <a4abd146-00b9-4933-a7b4-4cd5718488a5@k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 4, 4:21=A0pm, J=FCrgen Exner <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Then you may want to kick the administrator until he fixes the broken
> installation.
That might work, if only I lived anywhere near the administrator.
But in some cases, (s)he's in another country altogether.
Sadly, some people just don't think the perldocs are all that
important. Once I was working on a system maintained by a fellow co-
worker who lived all the way across the country, and I needed the
documentation for an important Perl script. I tried "perldoc"ing it,
of course, but unfortunately the "perldoc" package was not installed.
Over the phone I begged my co-worker to install the "perldoc"
package but he didn't see the point. He figured that since we already
had access to the Camel book there was nothing more that the perldocs
could offer. Nevertheless, I succeeded in having him install the
perldocs, after which I instantly pulled up all the relevant
documentation.
He was surprised. "How did you find that information so quickly?"
he asked. I explained him it that all good modules have documentation
that can be extracted with the "perldoc" package, but that the
documentation can only be viewed if the "perldoc" package is properly
installed.
He then muttered something about the perldocs being more than what
he thought they were, and went on his way to do something else.
(With other administrators I haven't been so lucky. Many of them I
don't even know personally, so I fire off an e-mail, and never hear
from them.)
While I agree with you 100% that system administrators should
install the "perldoc" package along with Perl, if they happen to think
it's redundant and not needed, convincing them otherwise is a bit like
moving mountains.
-- Jean-Luc
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 08:31:56 -0800 (PST)
From: "jl_post@hotmail.com" <jl_post@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc?
Message-Id: <57359b15-fc77-481a-a6b2-ef0d5634e126@m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 4, 3:27=A0pm, Ben Morrow <b...@morrow.me.uk> wrote:
>
> perldoc almost certainly *is* installed somewhere,
> it's just not in your PATH. Check to see if your
> /usr/bin/perl is a symlink somewhere, and if
> the real binary has a 'perldoc' next to it.
I just tried your suggestion on one account (where "perldoc"
doesn't work) and sure enough, the file that "which perl" revealed was
indeed a symlink to... another symlink! I followed that new symlink,
and in that directory I found both the perl and the perldoc
executables.
So at least on that system, I can solve the perldoc problem by
creating an alias.
I'll have to try your suggestion on the system that lacks internet
access -- next time I use it, that is.
Thanks for your input, Ben.
-- Jean-Luc
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:44:18 -0500
From: Sherm Pendley <sherm@debian.shermpendley.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc?
Message-Id: <87tysulnvh.fsf@debian.shermpendley.com>
Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> writes:
> perldoc almost certainly *is* installed somewhere
That's not necessarily true. Many Linux systems package perldoc
and the various .pod files into a separate perl-dev or similar
package.
sherm--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:51:50 -0500
From: Sherm Pendley <sherm@debian.shermpendley.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc?
Message-Id: <87pr3ilnix.fsf@debian.shermpendley.com>
"jl_post@hotmail.com" <jl_post@hotmail.com> writes:
> That might work, if only I lived anywhere near the administrator.
> But in some cases, (s)he's in another country altogether.
There's this thing called "email," you see... :-)
> Sadly, some people just don't think the perldocs are all that
> important.
Having perldocs on a production server is *not* important. You
shouldn't be using that server for development work anyway. With
VirtualBox et al, you can easily mirror whatever deployment config
you need, right on your desktop, and install the tools and docs
you need on that.
sherm--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:55:25 -0600
From: John Bokma <john@castleamber.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc?
Message-Id: <87bpf2r9mq.fsf@castleamber.com>
Sherm Pendley <sherm@debian.shermpendley.com> writes:
> "jl_post@hotmail.com" <jl_post@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> That might work, if only I lived anywhere near the administrator.
>> But in some cases, (s)he's in another country altogether.
>
> There's this thing called "email," you see... :-)
>
>> Sadly, some people just don't think the perldocs are all that
>> important.
>
> Having perldocs on a production server is *not* important. You
> shouldn't be using that server for development work anyway. With
> VirtualBox et al, you can easily mirror whatever deployment config
> you need, right on your desktop, and install the tools and docs
> you need on that.
There is such a thing as working on a remote development server ;-).
While you can mimick the development environment on your own machine, it
might not always be easy to do so.
--
John Bokma j3b
Hacking & Hiking in Mexico - http://johnbokma.com/
http://castleamber.com/ - Perl & Python Development
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:55:54 -0800
From: Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc?
Message-Id: <bdd2p5123o3q1qpaa7r8pjmh039n6micpk@4ax.com>
Bart Lateur <bart.lateur@telenet.be> wrote:
>Jürgen Exner wrote:
>
>>"jl_post@hotmail.com" <jl_post@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> I use the perldocs frequently when I'm programming in Perl.
>>>However, on some systems I've used, "perldoc" is apparently not
>>>installed (despite the fact that Perl is).
>>
>>Then you may want to kick the administrator until he fixes the broken
>>installation.
>
>Yeah, yeah.
>
>Why not complain against the people making the Linux distributions. A
>lot of them, if not all, separate the perl binary from the core modules.
Not sure if you really meant core modules or rather perl documentation.
As for the documentation being in a separate package that is actually
logical when thinking about servers (of all kind). Documentation is for
human consumption during code development and nobody in his right mind
would develop code on a live server. On the contrary, in a server
environment you want the configuration to be as slick and streamlined as
possible to reduce any even far-fetched chance of interference.
Therefore I would expect servers not to contain any documentation.
Of course omitting the docs in a developer's environment is
unforegivable.
jue
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:59:46 -0800
From: Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc?
Message-Id: <q0e2p5h13v62dmkeja4ce3ov98jtfg3k1j@4ax.com>
Sherm Pendley <sherm@debian.shermpendley.com> wrote:
>Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> writes:
>
>> perldoc almost certainly *is* installed somewhere
>
>That's not necessarily true. Many Linux systems package perldoc
>and the various .pod files into a separate perl-dev or similar
>package.
Which actually makes sense because you need those only while
_dev_-eloping Perl code but not on any server that is running perl as a
utility.
jue
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:00:49 -0500
From: Sherm Pendley <sherm@debian.shermpendley.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc?
Message-Id: <87lje6ln3y.fsf@debian.shermpendley.com>
John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> writes:
> Sherm Pendley <sherm@debian.shermpendley.com> writes:
>
>> Having perldocs on a production server is *not* important. You
>> shouldn't be using that server for development work anyway. With
>> VirtualBox et al, you can easily mirror whatever deployment config
>> you need, right on your desktop, and install the tools and docs
>> you need on that.
>
> There is such a thing as working on a remote development server ;-).
True, but what I said is still valid, whether the dev environment is
on your desk or on the other side of the planet. Either way, it's the
developer's machine that needs perldoc, not the deployment server.
> While you can mimick the development environment on your own machine,
> it might not always be easy to do so.
It depends on the degree of accuracy you need. I don't have a Sparc
workstation in the office, for example - but I can install Solaris
in a VirtualBox instance, and for many purposes that can be close
enough.
sherm--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:07:25 -0800
From: Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc?
Message-Id: <78e2p590i17vn8uce5bb47dria3tqccu9k@4ax.com>
Sherm Pendley <sherm@debian.shermpendley.com> wrote:
>True, but what I said is still valid, whether the dev environment is
>on your desk or on the other side of the planet. Either way, it's the
>developer's machine that needs perldoc, not the deployment server.
Exactly. Nobody in his right mind would develop code on a live server.
And for those red hot fixes that have to be done this instance bypassing
any and all testing and deployment procedures you can still check the
documentation on your dev machine or in the worst case online.
You are taking a very high risk anyway, the added risk of mismatched doc
versions is negligable in comparision.
jue
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:15:59 -0600
From: John Bokma <john@castleamber.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc?
Message-Id: <873a0er8og.fsf@castleamber.com>
Sherm Pendley <sherm@debian.shermpendley.com> writes:
> John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> writes:
>
>> Sherm Pendley <sherm@debian.shermpendley.com> writes:
>>
>>> Having perldocs on a production server is *not* important. You
>>> shouldn't be using that server for development work anyway. With
>>> VirtualBox et al, you can easily mirror whatever deployment config
>>> you need, right on your desktop, and install the tools and docs
>>> you need on that.
>>
>> There is such a thing as working on a remote development server ;-).
>
> True, but what I said is still valid, whether the dev environment is
> on your desk or on the other side of the planet. Either way, it's the
> developer's machine that needs perldoc, not the deployment server.
Not argueing with you there. OTOH I see no great harm in 1 (or maybe
more) additional modules, and a bunch of text files.
>> While you can mimick the development environment on your own machine,
>> it might not always be easy to do so.
>
> It depends on the degree of accuracy you need. I don't have a Sparc
> workstation in the office, for example - but I can install Solaris
> in a VirtualBox instance, and for many purposes that can be close
> enough.
Yup, true. On the other hand a customer might run SunOS with perl 5.0xxx
;-)
--
John Bokma j3b
Hacking & Hiking in Mexico - http://johnbokma.com/
http://castleamber.com/ - Perl & Python Development
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:20:08 -0600
From: John Bokma <john@castleamber.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc?
Message-Id: <87y6i6ptx3.fsf@castleamber.com>
Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> writes:
> Sherm Pendley <sherm@debian.shermpendley.com> wrote:
>>True, but what I said is still valid, whether the dev environment is
>>on your desk or on the other side of the planet. Either way, it's the
>>developer's machine that needs perldoc, not the deployment server.
>
> Exactly. Nobody in his right mind would develop code on a live server.
I haven't seen anybody implying such a thing. Why is it that working
remote seem to imply you're working on a live server?
There *are* situations where the development environment is remote. And
in that case it's good to have perldoc available on that system. Not
only because reproducing the environment on your own computer for the
sake of having access to the documentation that comes with Perl is
cumbersome (or might even be impossible), but also because it's useful
to read the documentation of custom Perl modules. And customers who want
you to work on their development computers are often not happy when you
download the custom modules to your own computer so you can read the
documentation with perldoc locally ;-)
--
John Bokma j3b
Hacking & Hiking in Mexico - http://johnbokma.com/
http://castleamber.com/ - Perl & Python Development
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:25:24 -0800
From: Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a "poor man's" perldoc?
Message-Id: <0dh2p5lilpjj6tntosqimn0sg9om5tr35r@4ax.com>
John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
>Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Sherm Pendley <sherm@debian.shermpendley.com> wrote:
>>>True, but what I said is still valid, whether the dev environment is
>>>on your desk or on the other side of the planet. Either way, it's the
>>>developer's machine that needs perldoc, not the deployment server.
>>
>> Exactly. Nobody in his right mind would develop code on a live server.
>
>I haven't seen anybody implying such a thing. Why is it that working
>remote seem to imply you're working on a live server?
Well, servers came up as an example of an environment where there is no
need for documentation on the machine.
>There *are* situations where the development environment is remote. And
>in that case it's good to have perldoc available on that system.
No question about that! On a development system, no matter if local or
remote, you do want and need all the tools that make you productive. You
wouldn't put up with ed, either, instead of vim or emacs or whatever
your favourite editor is.
jue
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 07:19:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Ninja Li <nickli2000@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Process between paragraphs in perl
Message-Id: <71ce4c81-437d-4e75-bda1-f76ee288ff70@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
This is a nice solution. Thanks for your help.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:58:40 -0600
From: darkon <darkon.tdo@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: strange behavior
Message-Id: <Xns9D32657CCE7B9darkon@216.168.3.30>
Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> wrote:
>
> Quoth darkon <darkon.tdo@gmail.com>:
>> Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > I wouldn't recommend AS Perl for Mac OS (or Win32 nowadays,
>> > for that matter).
>>
>> Why is that? I've been using AS on Win32 for about 10 years now.
>> Is Strawberry Perl now the recommended package for Windows?
>
> Recommended by whom?
>
> I've had unfortunate experiences with AS perl in the past, both
> with extensions I needed not being available and with changes
> they've made to core perl (in particular, their ActivePerl::Config
> stuff is just *nasty*). Strawberry is just perl as on any other
> platform, with a fairly usual level of minimal patching to make
> things work, most of which gets pushed back upstream reasonably
> quickly.
Ah. I was just curious.
> But if AS works for you, that's fine.
Yeah, AS works fine for me, but I mostly use it for quick data-
munging programs. My programs are seldom more than a couple hundred
lines, if that long. That's including whitespace, and I'm fairly
liberal with it.
------------------------------
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:
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp://cil-www.oce.orst.edu/pub/perl/old-digests.
#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 2854
***************************************
