Trey Harris schrieb: > I agree with the sentiment, but as a practical matter, not having HTML > methods in CGI.pm could drastically limit Perl 6 adoption.
Oh well. I thought it was common sense that it's a bad idea to mix code and markup. Who really wants to do itself this pain should use a separate module for that imho (or better a templating system like Template Toolkit). > If Perl 5 programmers get used to how they can mechanistically port > their programs to Perl 6, they will do so with the same sort of "ah-hah" > moments you've posted about on the Pugs blog, and it will be a good > experience. They can do: use perl5:CGI; if they want that legacy support. If Perl6 CGI.pm is intended to be the successor of the P5 CGI.pm (the quasi-standard for Perl web programming) is should really get a modern design. An other acceptable solution would be to create a backwards compatible P6 CGI.pm and create a new Web.pm with an all new interface, like Mark suggested. But then this new module cannot profit of the popularity of the name "CGI.pm" and many people will say "Ah, Perl6 web development is stuck at the 10 years old Perl5 CGI.pm interface. I'll use (python|ruby( on rails)?|.+)". That would be sad. > now: use CGI; > use CGI::HTMLgenerators; # Available separately, deprecated That'd be ok. Just my 2ct. -Thomas
