In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, brian d foy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are other things to consider, and to me it looks like this design
> decision isn't based on what's easier for the Perl 6 programmer but
> what's easier for the implementors.
My comment here was offensive to Damian (and
brian wrote:
[writing publicly to head off any notions there's a personality problem
here]
I said I wasn't going to continue this discussion, and I'm not. But I
do want to agree publicly that there's no clash between brian and
myself. I have only the highest respect for brian: as a person, as
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Damian Conway
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[writing publicly to head off any notions there's a personality problem
here]
> brian wrote:
> > I know you think it's easier to teach and explain, but that's because
> > you came up with it.
>
> I hope I'm not that shal
* Damian Conway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070616 23:21]:
> I will, however, take a moment to answer the accusation that I appear to
> have redesigned Pod the way I did in order to make implementation
> easier...
The opposit: your work is known to seek the corners of the language
which hurt most. So pl
* Jonathan Scott Duff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070616 20:15]:
> You mention OOP. For Perl 5 we have a standard, if very general,
> syntax and "open" semantics that have allowed people to implement OOP
> in a variety of ways. This was all well and good for a while until we
> realized that there should
