On 4/10/07, Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 02 April 2007, Marc Lehmann wrote: > On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 05:06:34AM +0300, Shlomi Fish < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Marc! > > > > May I forward my reply to the list? > > Yes, you may. Sorry for replying probably too late, thanks for asking > first! > OK. Replying to two different list (which I'm not subscribed to). > > > Well, to me, that very much sounds like "we do not openly admit it, but > > > we want to have Perl 5+1 working now, not whatever the Perl 6 people > > > claim they will deliver 5 years ago". > > > > Heh. Well, I don't expect to be able to duplicate the Pugs functionality > > in a short time. :-). However, if you look at: > > > > http://www.shlomifish.org/rindolf/ > > I wasn't clear then. Many peopel do not want a completely > different-in-spirit language called "Perl6", but many people atcually want > a language very much in spirit as Perl 5, just with a few important changes > done.
Sorry, but the phrase "different-in-spirit" rankled me a little bit. Perl 6 is definitely NOT different in spirit. In fact, Perl 6 is all about the spirit of Perl but changing some of the details that have held it back. All of the spirity things of Perl 5 are still present in Perl 6: TMTOWTDI, easy things easy, hard things possible, etc. -Scott -- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
