On Fri 11 May 2001 16:31, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 01:55:42AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 07:40:04PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > > By far most of my use of typeglobs is making aliases, and then mostly
> > > for code:
>
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Well, I think we should take a step back and answer a few key questions:
>>
>> 1. Do we want to be able to use Perl 5 modules in a
>>Perl 6 program (without conversion)?
>
>For a while, quite possibly, I'd say.
>
>When 5.6 came out, I was in m
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:01:47PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered:
> | Peter Scott writes:
> | : So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change with a more
> >
> | : dramatic change in the name?
>
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 02:57:20PM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
> OTOH, we're already talking about having support for multiple languages
> (parsers) within one file, and having perl5 being another parser. Put them
> together, and you get exactly this.
Yeah, it'll probably be possible to wedge th
All that follows is merely MHO, so feel free to disregard.
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Well, I think we should take a step back and answer a few key questions:
>
> 1. Do we want to be able to use Perl 5 modules in a
>Perl 6 program (without conversion)?
From: "Michael G Schwern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nathan Wiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: Perl5 Compatibility, take 2 (Re: Perl, the new generation)
> On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 10:56:38AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 02:22:30PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
> The largest problem may be in non-compiled modules, perl-only,
> user-designed.
Actually, the largest problem will be *compiled* modules. XS, as it
is very chummy with the Perl internals, will flat out not work.
Anything that uses XS
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 10:56:38AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Well, I think we should take a step back and answer a few key questions:
>
> 1. Do we want to be able to use Perl 5 modules in a
>Perl 6 program (without conversion)?
This would be desirable as it would allow people to c
> Well, I think we should take a step back and answer a few key questions:
>
> 1. Do we want to be able to use Perl 5 modules in a
>Perl 6 program (without conversion)?
For a while, quite possibly, I'd say.
When 5.6 came out, I was in module hell, trying to get 5.005 modules to
compi
* Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/11/2001 07:19]:
> > >
> > > I think you're in violent agreement here. This has been declared a
> > > goal of Perl 6 from almost day one.
> >
> >Ok, fair enough, but until just a little bit ago I was hearing stuff different
> >from Dan. That has been changed,
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 01:55:42AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 07:40:04PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > By far most of my use of typeglobs is making aliases, and then mostly
> > for code:
> >
> > *color = \&colour;
>
> I would say that probably the most common u
At 05:23 PM 5/10/2001 -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
>On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:00:13PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > We need to keep syntactic compatibility, which means we need to keep the
> > > ability for perl6 to USE P
On Fri, 11 May 2001 08:20:53 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>> Let's not confuse Perl 6, the Language, with Perl 6, the Implementation,
>> which includes compatibility apparatus that knows about Perl 5.
>
>Maybe we need more difference in the names than "exactly one bit".
Then maybe it's a good thing
Larry Wall wrote:
> Let's not confuse Perl 6, the Language, with Perl 6, the Implementation,
> which includes compatibility apparatus that knows about Perl 5.
Maybe we need more difference in the names than "exactly one bit".
"PVM"? No, that's in use already...
--
John Porter
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 07:40:04PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > or some such, unless the purpose of the local(*foo) could be determined
> > by unscrupulous means. Similarly, glob aliases *foo = *bar would
> > need special treatment.
>
> By far most of my use of typeglobs is making aliases
> or some such, unless the purpose of the local(*foo) could be determined
> by unscrupulous means. Similarly, glob aliases *foo = *bar would
> need special treatment.
By far most of my use of typeglobs is making aliases, and then mostly
for code:
*color = \&colour;
So naturally I hope
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:00:13PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > We need to keep syntactic compatibility, which means we need
> to keep the
> > > ability for perl6 to USE PERL5.
> >
> > I think you're in violent agreemen
Edward Peschko writes:
: Although I would amend what he said to saying 'perl6 will eat perl 5 code
: close to painlessly as possible including typeglobs'. Typeglobs are a central
: part of a lot of CPAN's core modules; I don't think we could get away with
: abolishing them willy-nilly.
Much of t
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:00:13PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > We need to keep syntactic compatibility, which means we need to keep the
> > ability for perl6 to USE PERL5.
>
> I think you're in violent agreement here. Thi
Edward Peschko writes:
: On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:43:34AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > Peter Scott writes:
: > : So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change with a more
: > : dramatic change in the name?
: >
: > I'm inclined to think that people will be more likely to migra
On Thu, 10 May 2001, David Grove wrote:
> The changes are beautiful. It's calling it "Perl" and relying on subliminal
> pursuasion to ask users to consider it the same that bothers me. That's a
> very Microsoftish tactic.
No, it's "Perl 6". If you want "Perl 5" or even "Perl 4" you know where
t
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:43:34AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Peter Scott writes:
> : So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change with a more
> : dramatic change in the name?
>
> I'm inclined to think that people will be more likely to migrate if
> they subconsciously think w
> -Original Message-
> From: Adam Turoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 3:31 PM
> To: David Goehrig
> Cc: Larry Wall; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Perl, the new generation
>
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 12:13:13PM -0700, David Goe
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:55:36AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> > If you talk that way, people are going to start believing it.
> [snip]
>
> Some of us are are talking that way because we already
> beleive it. You can't make the transition from Attic
> Greek to Koine without c
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 12:13:13PM -0700, David Goehrig wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:55:36AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> > If you talk that way, people are going to start believing it.
> [snip]
>
> Some of us are are talking that way because we already
> beleive it. You can't
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 08:22:17PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Oh, hyperbole! It's more like going from Katharevousa to Demotic.
(To pre-empt Philip Newton: Yes, I know, but going the other way wouldn't
have sounded like an advancement.)
--
An algorithm must be seen to be believed.
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 12:13:13PM -0700, David Goehrig wrote:
> Some of us are are talking that way because we already
> beleive it. You can't make the transition from Attic
> Greek to Koine without changing how people fundamentally
> view their language.
Oh, hyperbole
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:55:36AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> If you talk that way, people are going to start believing it.
[snip]
Some of us are are talking that way because we already
beleive it. You can't make the transition from Attic
Greek to Koine without changin
28 matches
Mail list logo
