Re: Everything is an object.

[Dan Sugalski]

At 11:12 AM -0800 12/16/02, Dave Storrs wrote:

On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 06:47:39PM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:

 Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 > Mind you (purely devil's advocate), I'm not entirely sure the R-to-L
 > syntax truly _needs_ to be in Perl6.  It's true I use it all the time,
 > but I can retrain to use L-to-R method calls with little effort.\

 Personally I really don't like the L to R style;

That's ok.  Personally, I do.  You find R2L easier to read, I find L2R
easier.  TIMTOWDI.  Perl6 should be smart enough to support both.

Why?

Yes, technically we can do both R2L and L2R. We can also support an alternative Scheme/Lisp form of perl's syntax, as well as a Forth/Postscript style. Heck, we can probably manage a prolog-style unification style for a not-insignificant subset of perl programs. That doesn't mean its a good idea.
--
Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk