At 5:45 PM -0800 12/16/02, Dave Storrs wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 03:44:21PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:12 AM -0800 12/16/02, Dave Storrs wrote:
>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.
Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you think L2R is a bad idea,
and should not be supported? Or just that it has not yet been
demonstrated that this is a good idea?
I think it's a good idea, and that it should *not* be supported.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
