On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 05:22:17PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
RFC: Perl6 is Final. There will Be No Perl7
RFC: Everything is Accessible and Mutable
RFC: The perl6 reference implementation, no matter how slow it is,
will be written in perl5, in some kind of well defined virtual machine.
RFC:
Nathan Torkington writes:
: Steve Fink writes:
: We are NOT here to construct a radically better language. We are here to
: design the underpinnings of one.
:
: Perhaps. And by "perhaps", I mean "no".
:
: We're here to say what we'd like to see in the next version of Perl.
: These can be big
Nathan Torkington wrote:
Steve Fink writes:
We are NOT here to construct a radically better language. We are here to
design the underpinnings of one.
Perhaps. And by "perhaps", I mean "no".
We're here to say what we'd like to see in the next version of Perl.
These can be big things
Here's my RFC todo list which I am dropping like a good mensch
on the occasion of Friday Evening.
RFC: Perl6 is Final. There will Be No Perl7
We declare that our framework willbe so flexiblke
that anything can be done with it and there will be no penalty
for something being
Steve Fink writes:
And both those examples apply to the underpinnings. Ok, maybe I have an
unusually broad definition of the word "underpinnings". Think "anything
that can't be done with a pure perl module".
I'm not wild about that metric, either. Exporter is pure Perl, but
I'd love to see
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, David L. Nicol wrote:
There will Be No Perl7
Of course not. Odd numbers are the development releases. The next
Perl after 6 will be 8.
Seriously, while a worthwhile goal, this is rather short-sighted.
The industry and the world will continue to change in spite (or
Jeremy Howard wrote:
Steve Fink writes:
And both those examples apply to the underpinnings. Ok, maybe I have an
unusually broad definition of the word "underpinnings". Think "anything
that can't be done with a pure perl module".
Say "anything that can't be done *fast*enough* with
