Darren Duncan skribis 2006-05-28 14:37 (-0700):
For one thing, I'm assuming that a prize-qualifying solution won't be
able to link-in legacy Perl 5 modules using Pugs' use perl5:Foo
syntax; to do so would look bad if we are wanting to show off a Wiki
solution using the NEW technology.
I'm
I see that there's work being done on a perl6 implementation under
languages in parrot. How is this effort related to the pugs
project? Is the aim of this to provide an alternative implementation
of perl6 to pugs? Is one of them the destined to be the canonical
implementation, or is
Whack three! I suddenly remember what it was like to learn Perl the
first time again. Boy do I feel confused. It's starting to work
though. Kinda like the first Perl CGI I wrote about seven years ago.
Probably just as ugly too. Anyone want to join in here, please feel
free!
#!/usr/bin/pugs
On May 29, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Audrey Tang wrote:
Personally, I think a canonical acceptance test suite is more
important than a canonical implementation, but if the Parrot/Perl6
official-perl6 plan works out, that's wonderful too. :-)
That's so cool. :-) This positive attitude toward
On May 29, 2006, at 7:53 PM, Ovid wrote:
Since it looks like we're really going to have Perl6 within a year
or so, what are the must have modules folks will want before they
can consider using Perl6 in production? Right off the bat, I see a
need for the following:
DBI (I hear Tim
