On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:50:35AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:10:00AM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote: > > And what will be the default syntax to call > > a method on self? If everyone has completly other > > preferences about this, for example this horrible ./method() > > syntax, which completly wont fit into the language, > > What a way to win friends! Some of us find ./method() to fit just > fine into the language and into use.
If telling my opinion is preventing us to become friends, i'm sorry for that. I heard "some" people to complain about the ./method() syntax too. > > Does the "default" syntax really matter that much? For your own > code, > > use self ""; > > is a small one-time cost to pay to get the syntax/semantics you want. > Well, one-time cost per source file, but I can easily see that someone > would build the scaffolding to let that be a one-time cost per site. > (e.g. having a site-wide policy for perl6 has been mentioned before) > Maybe per .-file in the home-directory, like .vimrc ... But i don't think that pushing everyone into his own language is the purpose of designing a new one. Also, i would be VERY curious how that 'self' module looks like. Is there already a spec that describes how to change the parser on the fly in such a module? And how many people, who dislike the ./-syntax will be actually able to write such a module? Or a module that works around another syntax design quirk in perl6? If the majority really wants ./, okay, i am fine with it. My own opinion is, that ./ doesn't fit into the language very much, at least not with a 'but it looks like shell programming'-argument. Perl6 isn't shell programming, and ./ has a completly different meaning (at least for me, and others i heard about this issue) in perl. > The only place I can see a problem is when reading other people's code, > but then I expect that the hue and cry would be such that *someone* > would write a tool to make it easy to transmogrify other perl6 dialects > into the one they particularly like to use. And given how well perl6 > will grok perl6, such a tool shouldn't be too difficult to write. Java-people also invent new tools to ease the pain of writing java-code. But Perl6 isn't as static as Java (of course) and will mutate into a custom language for any dedicated Perl6 programmer. It will be hard/easy to read someones elses Perl6 code regardless of the self->method() syntax. I don't think that this kind of syntax-translation is so very easy... and what about a perl6 program in a cvs. You probably want to change the code you read... > > > whose favorite will be the default? None at all? An explicit call, > > like $?SELF.method () ? > > Were I $Larry, that's what I'd do if people kept bringing it up and > carping about the syntax that works--decide there's no default and you > *always* have to be explicit in one way or another. > > Boy am I glad I'm not $Larry ;-) I would be completly fine with $?SELF.method () as default. > > > Will we end in something like > > > > use > > my_completly_custom_syntax_and_grammar_which_has_nothing_to_do_with_perl6_anymore; > > If that's your desire, perl ain't stopping you :-) I wanted to express my fear that perl6 might push me and others to write their own language plugin to work around suboptimal design in perl6. Robin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robin Redeker
