* Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/07/2001 13:33]:
>
> > I'm not against a "cleaner" way to do qw() in principle, but I
> > definitely think <> is not it for a lot of reasons (glob, readline,
> > can't use =>, iterators, ...)
>
> Sheesh. Yes, those would be problems with using <> in Perl 5.
>
> However, we are not designing Perl 5.
I know.
My point is there's a lot of lessons that have been learned from the
years of Perl development. They're coordinated into qw() in Perl 5. It
works very well, as do the other q-ops. Incredibly well, actually.
And => in <> is still a problem for any parser, even Perl 6's.
To quote you:
: http://dev.perl.org/rfc/28.pod
:
: Perl 6 is our opportunity to give Perl a good spring clean. When
: you're spring cleaning a house, you throw out the trash and dust
: down the ornaments, but you don't burn it down and build a shopping
: mall instead.
:
: I think it's reasonably fair to assume that we're all B<primarily>
: working on Perl 6 because we like Perl and we want to make it better,
: not because language design is a fun thing to do of an evening. If
: that's the case, nobody wins if we bend the Perl language out of all
: recognition, because it won't be Perl any more. So let's not do this.
: Let's keep Perl recognisably the language we know and love; let's
: enhance it, by all means, but let's not turn it into something it
: isn't.
I'm not trying to be a jerk at all, but I think at times we're losing
sight of the above.
-Nate
