On 03/13/2017 10:20 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
Just to be a little more clear about what is happening here:

Perl 5 tended to treat things as strings if you use them as strings, or
as numbers if you use them as numbers. Perl 6 is more strict about that,
but makes an exception for specifically numbers and strings; if you have
noticed the class "Cool", that's a class whose subclasses are string and
number classes, and which tries to make one into the other if needed.

Subs aren't Cool. [ :) ] They are objects of type Sub, which is *not* a
String (nor has a Stringy role, nor is a subclass of Cool). Perl 6 wants
you to explicitly make a string in this case; and as there are multiple
strings one could want (the name? a summary of the definition like .gist
makes? the full definition like .perl is intended to make but IIRC
doesn't yet? something else?) you need to specify exactly *what* string
to get from a Sub object.

Hi Brandon
Makes sense.  Thank you for the tutorial!

So Perl 6 is less "Lexiconical" that Perl 5?


I know, I am going to the bad hell.

When I was learning Perl 5, the  term "Lexiconical" drove
me nuts.  "JUST SAY WHAT YOU MEAN!!!!"   "Lexiconical"
meant noting to me for the longest time.  And every time
I looked it up, I understood it for about 20 seconds,
then lost it again.

Perl 6 is so much better done than Perl 5. I am a Top Down
guy (you will notice a lot fo subs in my postings) and
Perl 6's sub's are a match made in heaven.  I adore
Perl 6's subs.

I came from Modula 2.  "Lexiconical" is a dirty word
over there.  Everything is literal.


Reply via email to