Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 1999
Yes. 62 came out just as we were poking at the ugly bits of perl, so we started work there. I hope that people really stop adding features and concentrate on getting the included features to work properly. And as for bravery--we're not! We need this fix, or we wouldn't do it. Rob Dan Sugalski wrote: > > At 08:18 AM 10/26/99 -0400, Rob Cunningham wrote: > >One comment--your documentation doesn't describe how perl objects can be > >locked, nor how subroutines can be locked. In the old documentation, you > could > >separate locked functions from locked-functions-per-object. The latter is a > >critical component for me (for a multi-thousand line program). > > Forgot about that. I'll make some updates. (I think today's a 'fix the > docs' day) It definitely does make a difference in behavior. > > >BTW, We (actually--Brian Mancuso, primarily), are working on a perl > >threads/REGEXP fix and we've already developed a simple test. Brian reports > >that perl REGEXP code is nasty stuff, or we'd be done by now. > > Really? Cool. On the dev branch, I hope. (You're a braver man than I to > dive into the regex code...) > > Dan > > ----------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- > Dan Sugalski even samurai > dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even > teddy bears get drunk -- Dr. Robert K. Cunningham Information System Technology Group rkc@ll.mit.edu MIT Lincoln Laboratory *** My comments, my opinions: my responsibility. PGP key available from http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371