[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Siracusa) writes:
there's an official way, you'll certainly see less wheel reinvention than in
Perl 5. This is a good thing.
That is only true if you accept the fundamentalist principle that one should
never reinvent wheels. If that were true, then we wouldn't be
John Siracusa writes:
To bring it home, I think packaging and distribution is important
enough to warrant a standard, core-supported implementation. Yes,
it's great to be able to roll your own solution, but forcing the issue
by providing nothing but the most basic features required to
John Williams writes:
BTW, there should be no ambiguity between Cpostfix:'th and C'',
because one occurs where an operator is expected, and one occurs where
a term is expected.
There may be no ambiguity for the Perl engine, but any use of C' for
anything other than quoting makes life hard for
On Sun 05 Sep, David Green wrote:
On 2004/9/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lang) wrote:
(Nice Subject change, I almost missed it!)
Larry Wall wrote:
Yow. Presumably nth without an argument would mean the last.
If it means the last, why not just use Clast?
Conflict with last LOOP?
On 9/4/04 11:42 PM, chromatic wrote:
On Sat, 2004-09-04 at 18:44, John Siracusa wrote:
To bring it home, I think packaging and distribution is important enough to
warrant a standard, core-supported implementation.
I think the specially structured dir of files and its single-file packaged
On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 19:47, Larry Wall wrote:
This synopsis summarizes the non-existent Apocalypse 9, which
discussed in detail the design of Perl 6 data structures. It was
primarily a discussion of how the existing features of Perl 6 combine
to make it easier for the PDL folks to write
John Siracusa writes:
I think the most important question was at the end of my last message:
is something even *possible* without core support? Taking a set of
scripts and libs and making single-file, compiled (or precompiled
bytecode or whatever) executable that will run on all platforms
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 22:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Lang
Agreed; that's why I'd include last for newbies to use. 0th as last
works only as an extension of -1st as first from last, -2nd as
second from last, and so on; you have positive numbers counting from the
first, and negative numbers
