* Nathan Torkington [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05/10/2001 17:31]:
Here's the corresponding perl6 program:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
while ($ARGS) {
^
Whoa! Is RFC 94 being considered?! I thought I retracted that. ;-)
Notice the variable changes: %count{...} because I'm talking
* Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05/10/2001 11:57]:
Nathan Wiger writes:
: Maybe the name Perl should be dropped altogether?
No. The Schemers had to do a name change because the Lisp name had
pretty much already been ruined by divergence.
: (Granted, that's not what I'd prefer
* Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05/10/2001 14:18]:
Perl 6 *will* provide a backwards compatible Perl 5 parser. The
details are not nailed down, but this definately will happen.
Damn straight. One way or another, perl 6 will eat perl 5 code close to
painlessly. (Typeglobs, perhaps,
* Adam Turoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05/10/2001 15:20]:
Yes, it has, in Apocolypse 1:
Perl 6 must assume it is being fed Perl 5 code until it knows otherwise.
http://www.perl.com/pub/2001/04/02/wall.html
Yup, I saw that - actually, the discussion I was referencing was
Adam Turoff wrote:
No worries. These BSD guys are onto something...
http://www.daemonnews.org/200010/dadvocate.html
Thanks for the great link. This is a really interesting article. In
particular, I found these points about FreeBSD to be reminiscient of
concerns some have raised about
Nathan Torkington wrote:
$als_keynote = Dumper($Larry-perl6_design);
snicker
package Sympathy;
sub create { print "We're behind you, $_!\n" }
package main;
create Sympathy because = RFCs for Larry;
Heh, it actually works, too. :-)
-Nate
P.S. Do we need a perl6-poetry? ;-)
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Just that it not be *too* hard to get on the closed lists
Yep, this is my only concern. It should be reasonably easy to say "I
really want to help" and get on the closed lists. Perhaps the best way
of making sure the lists don't bloat into "everyone has an opinion"
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Works. We still have those Quantum Ninja that we're holding in reserve for
Damian... :)
Yeah... they're vicious, too - they kick ass in constant time. ;-)
-Nate
John Porter wrote:
RFCs like "330: Global dynamic variables should remain the
default" should not need to be written! (No disrespect to you,
Nate.)
None taken; I actually agree. Unfortunately, I thought that -strict did
nowhere near enough analysis of scoping issues besides the initial
