Re: perl standard



Ben Bullock <benkasminbullock@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:ffbjer$hif$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 01:32:53 +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:10:13 +0000 (UTC), Ben Bullock
<benkasminbullock@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You are claiming that Perl is "defined by its implementation" while
at the same time failing to define clearly what "implementation"
means. If the documentation which comes with Perl is inconsistent
with the behaviour of the computer program "perl", is the
documentation correct and the program faulty, or vice-versa? Or what
if "perl" has some abilities which

It depends: p5p's can tell. Someone must take care of making them
agree.

In other words you're admitting that the language isn't actually
defined anywhere.

Amazing, it still works better than anything else I have used.

Perl is defined by its implementation. As uncertainties arise, Larry and
others try to agree on what changes are necessary to make the
implementation do what people think it should do.

See http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/

Is there a point to this argument?

Sinan

--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
clpmisc guidelines: <URL:http://www.augustmail.com/~tadmc/clpmisc.shtml>

.