"Markus Laire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 9 Nov 2002 at 18:56, Andrew Wilson wrote:
>
>> Starting small sounds like a good idea. I'm not so sure about trying to
>> "lock things down" before moving on. I don't think that will be
>> possible in any meaningful way. The problem with trying to
> Then if they read through the initial stuff and _still_ like Perl :-)
> they'll go out and buy a book or two on the subject, which they will
> study. Once they get familiar with the language, they'll go buy
> another few more specialized books, according to their interest.
I wouldn't bank too m
> -- whereas Perl has
> gotten a *bad* reputation from outsiders, who say the language is
> completely incomprehensible.
To clarify: Perl5 has gotten quite a bit of flak for being opaque,
write-only-read-never, whatever they want to call it. I am not
_agreeing_ with these statements, nor should
"Joseph F. Ryan" wrote:
> I think the biggest concern should be converts from perl 5. Most people
> will
Should we be focus on converting perl5 people, or converting people
completely new to Perl? My hope is that perl5 folks won't need much
convincing -- perhaps a tutorial/summary of changes --
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 19:20:58 -0500
> From: "Joseph F. Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
> Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
> >"Joseph
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 14:43:42 -0800
> From: Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> We can make some guesses based on our own experiences, and they might be
> close, except that I think we are a profoundly self-selected group.
> There may b
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 22:24:20 +
> From: Andrew Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > - Operators
> > - Precedence
> > - Superpositional
>
> These are now called Junks (From Junctions)
Iie, these are now called "Junction
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joseph F. Ryan writes:
Siction 0 :
General concepts . ( this is usually the most difficult part of a rich
language ( and perl5 / perl6 )
compile-phase / run-phase / more ???
...many more... all things that we will be back-referencing all the
time. may be this is ju
Hi, Michael,
I personally like perldoc.com documentation .
I think that for now we do not need a comrehensive reference.
we just need a series of more or less connected and ( not to be afraid
if ) overlapping esseis on particular topic with many code examples
which may be after collected ( in
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
"Joseph F. Ryan" wrote:
Angel Faus wrote:
I think that the best way would be to create an schema of a language manual,
and fill the documents as we proceed reviewing the Apocalypses.
Agreed -- we should certainly figure out the overall structure first,
befo
Joseph F. Ryan writes:
Siction 0 :
General concepts . ( this is usually the most difficult part of a rich
language ( and perl5 / perl6 )
compile-phase / run-phase / more ???
many more... all things that we will be back-referencing all the
time. may be this is just good glossary.
(It se
"Joseph F. Ryan" wrote:
> Angel Faus wrote:
> >I think that the best way would be to create an schema of a language manual,
> >and fill the documents as we proceed reviewing the Apocalypses.
Agreed -- we should certainly figure out the overall structure first,
before doing much else. I think tha
On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 13:21:06
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>Markus Laire wrote:
>> On 9 Nov 2002 at 18:56, Andrew Wilson wrote:
>> > I will be happy to be proved wrong about this but I have a feeling that
>> > too much attention to detail will get us bogged down.
>>
>> I also think that we shouldn't
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 04:49:42PM -0500, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> Angel Faus wrote:
>> I think that the best way would be to create an schema of a language
>> manual,
>> and fill the documents as we proceed reviewing the Apocalypses.
>>
>> Something like this:
>>
>> Section 1 - Language Referenc
Angel Faus wrote:
Should start small. No tutorials until docs & tests are done. No
working on A3 until A2 behaviors are *locked*, to whatever extent that
proves possible.
Comments?
I think that the best way would be to create an schema of a language manual,
and fill the documents as we
Markus Laire wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2002 at 18:56, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> > I will be happy to be proved wrong about this but I have a feeling that
> > too much attention to detail will get us bogged down.
>
> I also think that we shouldn't try to provide too exact and final
> documentation at once. Ju
Richard Nuttall wrote:
>
> Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
> >Here's some notes based on the first bits of feedback -- something to
> >throw rocks at, as it were.
> >
> >
> >"The overall project goal is to produce documentation that will:"
> >
> >(1) define precise semantics for the Perl6 language; disc
On 9 Nov 2002 at 18:56, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> Starting small sounds like a good idea. I'm not so sure about trying to
> "lock things down" before moving on. I don't think that will be
> possible in any meaningful way. The problem with trying to lock things
> down is that the design team are re
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 06:50:03PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> Conversations on this mailing list are going to look a lot like
> perl6-language, except more aggressively focused on one narrow area at a
> time. Starting from data types & behaviors, moving on to operators,
> then blocks, conditi
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Here's some notes based on the first bits of feedback -- something to
throw rocks at, as it were.
"The overall project goal is to produce documentation that will:"
(1) define precise semantics for the Perl6 language; discover and
document ambiguous possible behaviors and
>
> Should start small. No tutorials until docs & tests are done. No
> working on A3 until A2 behaviors are *locked*, to whatever extent that
> proves possible.
>
> Comments?
>
I think that the best way would be to create an schema of a language manual,
and fill the documents as we proceed revi
21 matches
Mail list logo
