Peter Edwards

• Website: dragonstaff.co.uk/perl/

Recent Actions

• Posted Outdated perl utility txt2html migration to Peter Edwards

  I noticed the other day we had an old utility script txt2html.pl that gave a warning
  $* is no longer supported at /usr/local/bin/txt2html.pl line 1512.
  Apparently $*=1 was how multi-line regex searching was done in old perls.

  N…

• Commented on New Dancer, Dancer2 plus Ecosystem Updates
  Nice one, Jason....
• Commented on Exploring Type::Tiny Part 1: Using Type::Params for Validating Function Parameters
  Good articles Toby, very helpful, and glad to see you cover how to make it work for people stuck with some perl 5.8.8 legacy customers. One typo, in the perl 5.8 example use Type::Params qw(compile_named); use Types::Standard qw(FileHandle HasMethods Str);...
• Commented on The Future of Perl 5
  +1 to OO classes and optional type checking in core. It would save time, effort and errors, and give more standardised, readable code (while still letting you TIMTOWTDI)...

Comment Threads

• Erez Schatz commented on The Future of Perl 5

  I gave it much thought before, mostly when I wondered why did so much effort was given to something like "postfix dereferencing" that is nothing more than syntactic sugar (or, to my taste, syntactic salt) rather than a proper object system, Class::MOP or otherwise.

  In other words, since the perl5porters is a small, focused team of volunteers …

• Duncan White commented on The Future of Perl 5

  Hi Ovid, your LRU example is indeed lovely syntax, I'd certainly use it - and I'm not a Moose user, I like the original bless-based Perl 5 object system. For my own amusement, I wrote a bless-based version. It's shorter than your original Moose version, although of course I had to write a new function which Moose does for you.

  But is anyone likely to implement "class" syntax in Perl 5 anytime soon? If not, it's just a pipe dream, isn't it?

  Finally, I note that the "method" syntax is already available in Perl 5 via either Method::Signatures or (my preference) Function::Para…

• Toby Inkster commented on Exploring Type::Tiny Part 1: Using Type::Params for Validating Function Parameters

  Oops, yeah.

• davebaker commented on Exploring Type::Tiny Part 1: Using Type::Params for Validating Function Parameters

  Another tiny typo in several of the examples:

  use Type::Params qw(compile named);

  should be

  use Type::Params qw(compile_named);

  THANKS for this great article!

• Toby Inkster commented on Exploring Type::Tiny Part 1: Using Type::Params for Validating Function Parameters

  There is actually an underscore in all the examples. The combination of the font and line height makes the underscore invisible though. If you copy and paste the examples, you'll see it's there.