[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Hmmm.... future of cons?
From: |
vbar |
Subject: |
Hmmm.... future of cons? |
Date: |
17 May 2002 16:29:59 -0000 |
Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
> should consider all the options carefully, but don't avoid it
> just because there aren't frequent cons releases. I don't
> think anything else out there is as good today. And if you
> don't like how it works, just change it -- it's only perl! :-)
Yeah, I've been reading the cons source recently... I thought
I knew Perl, but it's not enough for cons. Just an example
(off the top of my head, I don't have the source here):
$obj->bind(find pkgname, $par);
How many parameters does bind & find take? In other places,
the call to find is spelled
find pkgname ($par1, $par2);
- I can't even find that in perldoc...
IMHO cons is not maintained simply because it isn't all that maintainable... I
*like* Perl, but perhaps I should start
learning Python...
Bye
Vasek
- Hmmm.... future of cons?, Asko Kauppi, 2002/05/16
- Hmmm.... future of cons?,
vbar <=
- RE: Hmmm.... future of cons?, Nadim Khemir, 2002/05/21
- RE: Hmmm.... future of cons?, Steven Knight, 2002/05/21
- Re: Hmmm.... future of cons?, H. S. Teoh, 2002/05/21
- Re: Hmmm.... future of cons?, Doug Alcorn, 2002/05/21
- Re: Hmmm.... future of cons?, Brad Garcia, 2002/05/21
- Re: Hmmm.... future of cons?, Steven Knight, 2002/05/21
- Re: Hmmm.... future of cons?, Gary Oberbrunner, 2002/05/21
- Re: Hmmm.... future of cons?, Doug Alcorn, 2002/05/21
- Re: Hmmm.... future of cons?, Gary Oberbrunner, 2002/05/21