On 14 Dec 2000, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> >>>>> "Deven" == Deven T Corzine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Deven> I'm not pushing for this to be fixed in Perl 5; it's been out
> Deven> there long enough, and there's no point worrying about it in
> Deven> that version. But that doesn't mean that the same design flaw
> Deven> should be kept in Perl 6, when some minor incompatibilities are
> Deven> to be expected...
>
> But *I* don't see it as a design flaw. I predicted precisely what was
> going to be matched. Perhaps it's merely a matter of understanding
> and experience. I think the current definition is precisely
> predictable in all circumstances. If you start adding special-case
> rules, you'll lose. Big time.
>
> No bug. Just a feature you don't (yet) understand.
As I said in another message, I believe I erred in describing it as a
"flaw", since it is a design decision, and there are valid justifications
for either choice. Therefore, I'll henceforth escribe it as a "semantic
anomaly", which I hope will be more value-neutral. Maybe the anomaly is
real, or maybe it's a mirage. I believe it is real; we'll see whether or
not I'll be able to convince anyone else. It quite seems that people's
minds were made up long before the discussion even began, which makes this
a very steep uphill battle for me.
As for special-case rules, I believe that my proposed modification would
REMOVE a special-case semantic rule, at the cost of added complexity at the
implementation level. (The cost decision of whether that added complexity
is worthwhile is a separate consideration.)
And I'd really appreciate it if everyone would refrain from suggesting that
I don't understand the behavior. I understand it fine; I just don't agree
with it. In the language of the Supreme Court, "I respectfully dissent."
Just because I don't perfectly agree with the semantics that were chosen
doesn't mean I don't understand them.
Deven
