Bill Ricker

#Perl programmer, #Math major, #Linux user. #CPAN #Ack #Fotoxx ; aka Bill Ricker (npub1fj8…7hmy) and elsewhere. ^Sarcasm thus^

articles: https://n1vux.github.io/articles/
city: Boston
pronouns: he/him/they

Public Key

npub1mw56emd342q3gpe0q4h7sy3php3tms8z6gaddxk490m7hkgj70dstgz4z0

NIP-05 Address

bricker_at_fosstodon.org@momostr.pink

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsdh2dvakc64qg5quhs2mlgzgsmsc4acr3dywkknt2jhaltmyf08kcprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0d4hhxarj9ecxjmntqywhwumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttsw43zuam9d3kx7unyv4ezumn9wsall6kw

Publishing to

relay.momostr.pink

nostr-pub.wellorder.net

yabu.me

Author Public Key

npub1mw56emd342q3gpe0q4h7sy3php3tms8z6gaddxk490m7hkgj70dstgz4z0

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-03-25 22:14:29 UTC

- reply

nice.
that ifdef-guarded code was a place bugs could hide, much better off without it.

2026-03-25 02:52:42 UTC

- reply

fair. 11 years old is pretty old base for someone tracking experimental versions of experimental features !

2026-01-06 01:07:19 UTC

- reply

nice!

2025-11-27 18:06:40 UTC

- reply

in which case Ovid's hypotheticalb alternate choice upthread would be less problematic than i initially expected.

2025-11-27 17:38:50 UTC

- reply

ooooh

2025-11-26 14:27:32 UTC

- reply

yes, affordances matter.
An :attribute to decorate a whole class once, to set default pub/privacy for the class might make it easy to do tight encapsulation when needed and loose or heritable access also easy.

2025-11-25 03:42:33 UTC

- reply

True enough.
But as thoroughly as we collectively ^embraced^ (read: rejected) the data encapsulation of Inside-Out Classes that were in vogue (supposedly) around the debut of PBP, i expect we'd want actual enforcement of _private() methods but not reversion to pre-OO-modularity of " what you forget to export isn't visible interface"; default private with :public attribute would at least make it clear at the useful spot but.

2025-11-25 02:38:54 UTC

- reply

I think private by default would be correct in theory
but
in terms of getting it accepted into core feature class,
that would yes likely have been fatal, or removed as a condition for moving forward,
so ... no harm no foul ?

2025-08-05 17:53:15 UTC

- reply

I like the distinction of smart vs interested (i'd say curious; both smart & curious is most useful.)
Among my generation (late Boomer aka Gen Jones) I have peculiarly positive memories of the 1960s New Math, because the foreshadows of Number Theory included in K-3, giving the WHY along with the HOW, spoke to me (and partly because of that, I was lucky enough to get some Number Theory & Modern Algebra as enrichment before college).

2025-04-20 20:11:22 UTC

- reply

Nerdy skew required to get any YES to BSD responses at all.
If you want really old, check correlation between age and whether used BSD before or after Linux, among those who've used both.
(We actually had Bell PWB Unix (sortofa 6.5) on the 11 before BSD-3. There are a few commercial SysVr2+BSD smergers I missed out on before Linux but not many i missed, at one job we hard porting lab, and another was a Legacy Zoo.)

2025-04-20 04:39:11 UTC

- reply

Oooh, portable! That would be a space savings over the monster I got cheap. Family is intolerant.

2025-01-15 12:58:44 UTC

- reply

👍

2025-01-15 02:56:12 UTC

- reply

👍
Is there or will there be a PPC for S:K:M ?
As an enhancement to Core, I like S:K:M as being impossible to confuse with deprecated ~~/given/when, and having a nice Say What You Mean, Don't Repeat Yourself SWIM-DRY in lieu of the excessive DWIMmery.
Is there a P5P thread that not having a working NetNews reader I haven't seen?

2025-01-14 22:51:24 UTC

- reply

OK, that works but i can't see why!
Your S:K:M:Deparse still has TODO and POD TODO for custom operators , and other worrying comments.
I do like the idea of match having %% also!
Now pondering whether maximal syntactic divergence from deprecated given-when is good or bad. I could argue either way ...

2025-01-14 22:34:31 UTC

- reply

ahh, i see
```
plan skip_all => "Syntax::Operator::Equ is not available"
unless eval { require Syntax::Operator::Equ };
```

2025-01-14 17:05:18 UTC

- reply

that would obviously be necessary for it to work.
=== etc not being in 0.15 match's POD nor t/ suggests to me the integration is in a dev version that I'm not seeing?

2025-01-13 21:41:32 UTC

- reply

well there's a reason I didn't see ===, equ, eqr in the POD; in CPAN version 0.15, they're deferred features.
t/
`plan skip_all => "Syntax::Operator::Equ is not available"`
Deparse.pm POD:
`Integrate with custom ops (C<equ>, C<eqr>, etc..)`
(I don't immediately see a dev version on CPAN or GH.)

2025-01-10 02:37:07 UTC

- reply

IDK, i just remeber that there were issues with next and friends with mixing one of the switch replacement modules with both Object::Pad and tall 'use class' Corina, when I tried both last year.
'next INNER;' is best practice to avoid surprises, but when user keywords or source filters create invisible unnamed blocks or anon subs, named block is essential and may need a lexical 'no warning'.
I'd have to check my notes to see which I tried.

2025-01-10 02:27:06 UTC

- reply

I didn't see those in the quick read of doc!

2025-01-09 21:07:27 UTC

- reply

- one can argue that declaring which of eq, ==, =~, isa is intended in the match explicitly is a goodness and case if() provides the flexibility to do stranger things explicitly.
"Making easy things easy and hard things possible ... but obvious"
- I wonder how either will work with next,last, redo.

2025-01-09 21:02:29 UTC

- reply

comparing your S:K:M to Damian's S::Right —
- I have some slight preference for the given-when keywords, but I could live with match-case.
- Your inclusion of isa() is good, for cases where dispatch by inheritance isn't desirable.
- Damian's inclusion of a maximal sane subset of former behavior (so that any sane pre-existing program has a chance of working) is arguably a plus.
- I could probably live with only eq,==,=~,isa on the match since you've got `case if()` in S:K:M.

2024-12-03 22:48:20 UTC

- reply

Such homework is not assigned without context, as it is presented here; rather, it is always in a context of recent assigned reading, in-class lectures & demonstrations, and in-class worksheets (exercises).
I'd guess this is in a context of lessons on simplifying expressions involving product and division of monomials of 2 variables.
(POST-Modern nomenclature may be different!)
This reinforces thinking about powers of x separately from powers of y.

2024-10-05 01:08:11 UTC

- reply