This value may or may not be accurate, but it certainly is
eye-catching. For some things perl5 is faster than perl4, but often
-the reliability and extensability have come at a cost of speed. The
+the reliability and extensibility have come at a cost of speed. The
benchmark suite that Gisle released earlier has been hailed as both a
fantastic solution and as a source of entirely meaningless figures.
Do we need to test "real applications"? Can you do so? Anyone have
Yeah, I hope to implement it someday too. The points that were
raised in TPC2 were all to do with calling DESTROY() methods, but
-I think we can accomodate that by extending bless() to stash
+I think we can accommodate that by extending bless() to stash
extra information for objects so we track their lifetime accurately
for those that want their DESTROY() to be predictable (this will be
a speed hit, naturally, and will therefore be optional, naturally. :)
-
+
[N.B. Don't even ask me about this now! When I have the time to
write a cogent summary, I'll post it.]
No documentation for perl function `random stuff' found
The following entry in perlfunc.pod matches /random/a:
=item rand EXPR
-
+
=item rand
-
+
Returns a random fractional number greater than or equal to C<0> and less
than the value of EXPR. (EXPR should be positive.) If EXPR is
omitted, the value C<1> is used. Automatically calls C<srand()> unless
C<srand()> has already been called. See also C<srand()>.
-
+
(Note: If your rand function consistently returns numbers that are too
large or too small, then your version of Perl was probably compiled
with the wrong number of RANDBITS.)
=head2 autocroak?
-This is the Fatal.pm module, so any builtin that that does
+This is the Fatal.pm module, so any builtin that does
not return success automatically die()s. If you're feeling brave, tie
this in with the unified exceptions scheme.