use Perl

Ah d’uh, you gave the solution at the end. Pfff.

try to figure out why jnthn++ named the IRC logs “the hottest footwear” recently

IRC logs → I.R. Clogs → infra-red clogs?

sub uc_prop { # inefficient
  my $t = reverse shift;
  my $h = uc chop $t;
  return $h . reverse $t;
}

(Of course you can do the same thing more efficiently – and boringly:)

sub uc_prop {
  my $t = shift;
  my $h = uc substr $t, 0, 1, '';
  return $h . $t;
}

(The following one might be more efficient. Or it may not be.)

sub uc_prop {
  my $s = shift;
  my $h = uc substr $s, 0, 1, '';
  substr $s, 0, 0, $h;
  return $s;
}

(The first one is cool though.)

Good question. I am only passingly familiar with that clause (I esp. don’t know how battle-tested it is); so I didn’t think of it, and can’t say right now. Passing the ball back to you – what do you think of it?

(Huh. If the GPL2 patent grant is strong enough for this, that would mean Android is actually more vulnerable than a JDK fork would be. Bizarre…)

Google did call theirs something different.

They’re being sued over patent violation.

Now Sun did extend a patent protection grant to conforming implementations of Java. And the JVM is conforming and free.

But the test suite that determines conformance is not free, or even available under any terms.

So good luck with that plan.

Setting up a site that 301s all permalinks on the use.perl domain to corresponding migrated pages some other site shouldn’t be too hard if the migration and redirector are both based off the same dump, and the dump has enough information to infer the use.perl URLs, though. I’ve done that sort of thing before.

Yeah, why would they?

The composition order of roles is not an implementation detail of Moose; it’s a design concern of the creator of the class into which the roles get composed. To ask for it to be abstracted away is like calling maths is badly designed because 3 + 5 * 2 yields different results based on the order in which you evaluate the terms.

Oh, and the people who built Testers 2.0 put in a lot of overtime to ship it in time before the Testers 1.0 kill date.

Yes, that is progress. The servers running the mail load for CPAN Testers 1.0 could not keep up, and the machines are graciously donated and the system administration is a volunteer effort. They could not afford to continue providing services to Testers 1.0; the mail pipe had to be turned off. This is why Testers 2.0 was designed – not because some people got an itch to engage in architecture astronautics or arbitrarily decided that email was passé. Whatever you think of the new system, the old one is going to stop working, no ifs or buts.

If you ask me, a system that will continue operating clearly beats one that is about to stop.

Are you really hankering so badly for even more tests to run? ;-)

Makes sense… catching mistakes at compile time is better. :-)

Oops. That won’t work for LAST, though it does for FIRST. Hmm.

for 1..3 {
    my $first; FIRST { $first = 1 }
    my  $last;  LAST {  $last = 1 }

    say "enter";
    if $first { say "first run" }
    if $last  { say "last run" }
    say "leave"
}

Not these days so much, and I’m hoping it’s all in the past at this point.