Dave Whipp wrote:
I actually agree that your explicit definition (a simple/efficient
implementation in terms of other operators) is better for prelude than
my "declarative" form (which isn't really declarative, because Perl6
isn't a declarative language). My only disagreement was with your
earlier statement in this thread, where you said that prelude.pm should
use a declarative style.
I think we agree that what you really meant was that it should be
written in an explicit self-referential style; and that it should avoid
"programming" implementations as much as possible (e.g. prefer hyper-ops
over explicit loops)
Yes, I agree; what you stated in the second paragraph here is what I considered
important for a prelude.pm. -- Darren Duncan
