I know PM does not like the word 'stability' for language development,
and I have just posted a response to Wendell Hatcher's question
justifying Patrick's approach.
However, some other questions arose when I was considering 'usability',
which Patrick sets as a goal for Rakudo *, as opposed
Em Sáb, 2010-03-20 às 12:16 +0300, Richard Hainsworth escreveu:
Suppose we define a domain of stability as syntax/functionality/features
that will not be changed until a milestone is reached, with the
guarantee that if the language specification changes before then,
backwards compatibility
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em Sáb, 2010-03-20 às 12:16 +0300, Richard Hainsworth escreveu:
Suppose we define a domain of stability as syntax/functionality/features
that will not be changed until a milestone is reached, with the
guarantee that if the language specification changes before then,
Not really a versioned dependencies.
When a working module is updated to have new functionality, the old
version continues to work.
Here it is the very language that is changing.
For instance, =$fh was used to generate input from a file. Now it is
$fh.lines
Old examples that I wrote using
On Saturday 20 March 2010 at 12:23, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
In other words, I am suggesting a sort of mapping of the syntax of perl6
so that stable areas can us be used, perhaps avoiding instruments that
are not yet explicitly stable.
That assumes it's possible to know with sufficient
Em Sáb, 2010-03-20 às 22:23 +0300, Richard Hainsworth escreveu:
Here it is the very language that is changing.
For instance, =$fh was used to generate input from a file. Now it is
$fh.lines
Note that I did mention versioned dependencies for grammar, CORE and
setting. So yes, considering the
