Moritz Lenz wrote:

I fear what Perl 6 needs is not to broaden the range of discussion even
further, but to narrow it down to the essential points. Personal opinion

OK, as a completely serious proposal, the semantics of "for 0..10 { ... }" should be for the compiler to complain "sorry, that's a perl5ism: in perl6, please use a C<...> or explicit coercion of the range to a sequence".

(BTW, I thought a bit more about my previous suggestion: there is precedent in that %hash.keys is unordered -- so it's not entirely obvious that a default range coercion should be ordered)

Reply via email to