Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> Piers Cawley:
> > Well, no. Because Perl 6 is specified as behaving like perl 5 until
> > told different. Which means that the first translation you give would
> > be a syntax error.
>
> Ouch. Guess I need to go reread A1. Anyway, that makes it easier -
> then there needs to be no translation.
My understanding was that perl6 would default to Perl 6 (*not* Perl 5), unless
the first thing it encountered was a:
package Whatever;
statement.
> Eh, doesn't that mean Damian's TPJ article is misleading?
If it were true, it would have. Yes. ;-)
Damian
