My apologies for being too succinct. "lost" is a bit of an emotive word
which is somewhat inaccuracte.
I still believe in RFC 109 and I think I made a good case based on my
own reasons. However the overwhelming majority of responses were negative,
for their own very good albeit different reasons.
It boils down to a question of philosophy I clearly felt Perl ought to be
more like python, clearly the majority disagreed with me. I have no
problem with that. That's fine. I still like Perl.
I think the issue got talked out very well, some good points were made I see
no point in pursuing that discussion any further - given some 90% of the
people on perl6-language opposed losing the @%$ distinctions clearly it has
no chance of being implemented! And there seems not much more to say on
the issue.
The only problem I had with the whole discussion, and with ongoing disucssions
on other subjects on perl6-language-data, is nobody seems to have any idea
how radical perl6 should be. Larry says "anything goes" which is fine,
but unhelpful. We need some context into which to frame the whole discussion.
Karl
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 05:39:20PM -0000, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> > =head1 TITLE
> >
> > Less line noise - let's get rid of @%
>
> ...
>
> > I withdrew it on 28th August as I figured I had lost the
> > argument!
>
> I'm sorry, but this just doesn't jive with me. There is no "argument".
> We are discussing proposed features for perl 6. If you were somehow
> convinced that your idea is a bad one, than that's a good reason for
> withdrawing an RFC. If you're withdrawing it because no one seems to
> agree with you, yet you still think it's a good idea (this is how I read
> your sentence above), then that's just plain *WRONG* IMHO.
>
> Ignore me if I'm reading between the lines a little too much.
>
> -Scott
> --
> Jonathan Scott Duff
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
