On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:50:35AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:10:00AM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
> > And what will be the default syntax to call
> > a method on self? If everyone has completly other
> > preferences about this, for example this horrible ./method()
> > syntax, which completly wont fit into the language, 
> What a way to win friends!  Some of us find ./method() to fit just
> fine into the language and into use.

If telling my opinion is preventing us to become friends, i'm sorry for
I heard "some" people to complain about the ./method() syntax too.

> Does the "default" syntax really matter that much?   For your own
> code,
>       use self "";
> is a small one-time cost to pay to get the syntax/semantics you want.
> Well, one-time cost per source file, but I can easily see that someone
> would build the scaffolding to let that be a one-time cost per site.
> (e.g. having a site-wide policy for perl6 has been mentioned before)

Maybe per .-file in the home-directory, like .vimrc ...

But i don't think that pushing everyone into his own language is the
purpose of designing a new one.

Also, i would be VERY curious how that 'self' module looks like.
Is there already a spec that describes how to change the parser on the
fly in such a module?

And how many people, who dislike the ./-syntax will be actually able to
write such a module? Or a module that works around another
syntax design quirk in perl6?

If the majority really wants ./, okay, i am fine with it.
My own opinion is, that ./ doesn't fit into the language very
much, at least not with a 'but it looks like shell
programming'-argument. Perl6 isn't shell programming, and ./ has a
completly different meaning (at least for me, and others i heard about
this issue) in perl.

> The only place I can see a problem is when reading other people's code,
> but then I expect that the hue and cry would be such that *someone*
> would write a tool to make it easy to transmogrify other perl6 dialects
> into the one they particularly like to use. And given how well perl6
> will grok perl6, such a tool shouldn't be too difficult to write.

Java-people also invent new tools to ease the pain of writing java-code.
But Perl6 isn't as static as Java (of course) and will mutate into 
a custom language for any dedicated Perl6 programmer.
It will be hard/easy to read someones elses Perl6 code regardless of the 
self->method() syntax.

I don't think that this kind of syntax-translation is so very easy...
and what about a perl6 program in a cvs. You probably want to change
the code you read...

> > whose favorite will be the default? None at all? An explicit call,
> > like $?SELF.method () ?
> Were I $Larry, that's what I'd do if people kept bringing it up and
> carping about the syntax that works--decide there's no default and you
> *always* have to be explicit in one way or another.
> Boy am I glad I'm not $Larry  ;-)

I would be completly fine with $?SELF.method () as default.

> > Will we end in something like 
> > 
> > use
> > my_completly_custom_syntax_and_grammar_which_has_nothing_to_do_with_perl6_anymore;
> If that's your desire, perl ain't stopping you  :-)

I wanted to express my fear that perl6 might
push me and others to write their own language plugin
to work around suboptimal design in perl6.


Robin Redeker

Reply via email to