From amoore at mooresystems.com  Mon Jul 12 20:31:47 2010
From: amoore at mooresystems.com (Andrew Moore)
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:31:47 -0500
Subject: [Kc] July meeting?
Message-ID: <AANLkTimQWzJbYbPcU9vqa147PSApdjBnxzANcc-FRGHh@mail.gmail.com>

The July meeting of the KC PM is scheduled for tomorrow night, Tuesday.

I'll be unable to make it this month, but are there any others
interested in getting together for a pint and a chat? The regular
schedule puts us at Barley's in Shawnee at 7pm. If anyone is
interested, please speak up and maybe we can still get together a
gang.

-Andy

From djgoku at gmail.com  Tue Jul 13 03:12:55 2010
From: djgoku at gmail.com (Jonathan Otsuka)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 05:12:55 -0500
Subject: [Kc] July meeting?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimQWzJbYbPcU9vqa147PSApdjBnxzANcc-FRGHh@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimQWzJbYbPcU9vqa147PSApdjBnxzANcc-FRGHh@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2F3E828A-78BB-4EFE-AC33-03D994BF99A9@gmail.com>

I will be unable to make it this month also. 

Jonathan

On Jul 12, 2010, at 10:31 PM, Andrew Moore <amoore at mooresystems.com> wrote:

> The July meeting of the KC PM is scheduled for tomorrow night, Tuesday.
> 
> I'll be unable to make it this month, but are there any others
> interested in getting together for a pint and a chat? The regular
> schedule puts us at Barley's in Shawnee at 7pm. If anyone is
> interested, please speak up and maybe we can still get together a
> gang.
> 
> -Andy
> _______________________________________________
> kc mailing list
> kc at pm.org
> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/kc

From davidnicol at gmail.com  Tue Jul 13 06:56:23 2010
From: davidnicol at gmail.com (David Nicol)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:56:23 -0500
Subject: [Kc] July meeting?
In-Reply-To: <2F3E828A-78BB-4EFE-AC33-03D994BF99A9@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimQWzJbYbPcU9vqa147PSApdjBnxzANcc-FRGHh@mail.gmail.com> 
	<2F3E828A-78BB-4EFE-AC33-03D994BF99A9@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikC3sQh3tVoXZPuHhmLA1cJJ3T7ey6eKkDtsTTl@mail.gmail.com>

Anyone for holding tonight's meeting a little eastward from the usual
location, perhaps at D.B. Cooper's or Javanaut? Javanaut is of course
dry, but they have an underused second floor that amounts to a meeting
room.

From ironicface at earthlink.net  Tue Jul 13 07:09:38 2010
From: ironicface at earthlink.net (ironicface at earthlink.net)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:09:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Kc] July meeting?
Message-ID: <19201773.1279030179206.JavaMail.root@elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

I would love to, since that is easier for me to get to.
But I (most likely) have to work this evening.

Teal

>Anyone for holding tonight's meeting a little eastward from the usual
>location, perhaps at D.B. Cooper's or Javanaut? Javanaut is of course
>dry, but they have an underused second floor that amounts to a meeting
>room.
>_______________________________________________
>kc mailing list
>kc at pm.org
>http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/kc


From davidnicol at gmail.com  Fri Jul 16 08:31:55 2010
From: davidnicol at gmail.com (David Nicol)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:31:55 -0500
Subject: [Kc] curious $AUTOLOAD package binding
Message-ID: <AANLkTin5Bw6F_DvsL-oHfx_QT6vN7wotjTGmOpOUfWdq@mail.gmail.com>

with perl v5.10.1 on cygwin:

Documentation about the $AUTOLOAD variable states that it is a package
variable in the same package where the AUTOLOAD routine is found. This
is not always true. Apparently when an AUTOLOAD routine is added by
assignment to glob instead of by declaration, $AUTOLOAD within it is
bound to the package in effect at the assignment.


$ perl -le 'sub z::AUTOLOAD { warn "called $z::AUTOLOAD"} @x::ISA =
qw/z/;x->abc'
called x::abc at -e line 1.

$ perl -le '*z::AUTOLOAD =sub{ warn "called $z::AUTOLOAD"}; @x::ISA =
qw/z/;x->abc'
called  at -e line 1.

$ perl -le '*z::AUTOLOAD =sub{ warn "called $main::AUTOLOAD"}; @x::ISA
= qw/z/;x->abc'
called x::abc at -e line 1.

__PACKAGE__ doesn't get changed when a subroutine is declared normally though

$ perl -le '*z::AUTOLOAD =sub{ warn __PACKAGE__}; @x::ISA = qw/z/;x->abc'
main at -e line 1.

$ perl -le 'sub z::AUTOLOAD { warn __PACKAGE__}; @x::ISA = qw/z/;x->abc'
main at -e line 1.

$ perl -le 'sub z::AUTOLOAD { eval "warn __PACKAGE__"}; @x::ISA = qw/z/;x->abc'
main at (eval 1) line 1.


I don't know if this is a bug and if so in what.

Furthermore,

$ perl -le '*z::AUTOLOAD =sub{ package z; warn "called $AUTOLOAD"};
@x::ISA = qw/z/;x->abc'
called  at -e line 1.

$ perl -le 'sub z::AUTOLOAD { package z; warn "called $AUTOLOAD"};
@x::ISA = qw/z/;x->abc'
called x::abc at -e line 1.

$ perl -le '*z::AUTOLOAD =sub{  warn "called $AUTOLOAD"}; @x::ISA =
qw/z/;x->abc'
called x::abc at -e line 1.

$ perl -le 'sub z::AUTOLOAD { warn "called $AUTOLOAD"}; @x::ISA = qw/z/;x->abc'
called  at -e line 1.

It appears that what package $AUTOLOAD binds to is affected by the
subroutine declaration, while the resolution of $AUTOLOAD is governed
by normal scoping rules.

The documentation seems to say that the package's $AUTOLOAD that gets
the goods is the package where the AUTOLOAD routine was found, but the
above examples where AUTOLOAD is explicitly assigned to a glob instead
of getting declared indicate otherwise.





Thoughts? Should I try to escalate this?

From ironicface at earthlink.net  Fri Jul 16 14:30:14 2010
From: ironicface at earthlink.net (ironicface at earthlink.net)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 17:30:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Kc] curious $AUTOLOAD package binding
Message-ID: <6196127.1279315814405.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Is this a problem?
If $AUTOLOAD operates within an assignment, does it make sense that it use the package providing the assignment?

Does it create cross package problems?

In a sense, if you declare the AUTOLOAD, you are overiding the default.
You are managing the capability yourself.

If there is not a problem in how it works, then it would seem the documentation is in error, and should be clarified.

Teal

>with perl v5.10.1 on cygwin:
>
>Documentation about the $AUTOLOAD variable states that it is a package
>variable in the same package where the AUTOLOAD routine is found. This
>is not always true. Apparently when an AUTOLOAD routine is added by
>assignment to glob instead of by declaration, $AUTOLOAD within it is
>bound to the package in effect at the assignment.
>

>It appears that what package $AUTOLOAD binds to is affected by the
>subroutine declaration, while the resolution of $AUTOLOAD is governed
>by normal scoping rules.
>
>The documentation seems to say that the package's $AUTOLOAD that gets
>the goods is the package where the AUTOLOAD routine was found, but the
>above examples where AUTOLOAD is explicitly assigned to a glob instead
>of getting declared indicate otherwise.
>
>
>
>
>
>Thoughts? Should I try to escalate this?
>_______________________________________________
>kc mailing list
>kc at pm.org
>http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/kc