On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, John Porter wrote:
Nathan Wiger wrote:
the more compatible
with Perl5 Perl6 is, the more likely it is to be accepted.
I don't believe that's necessarily true.
If Perl6 proves to be a significantly better Perl than Perl5,
people will adopt it, especially if they're
Dave Storrs wrote:
being backwards compatible is unlikely to
_cost_ us adherents and might well gain us some.
Yes, all other things being equal. But will they be?
IOW: at what cost backwards compatibility?
--
John Porter
Ted Ashton wrote:
Thus it was written in the epistle of Michael G Schwern,
I think [Nate]'s saying that its annoying to have to write any tag
that says "Hey, I'm starting a new Perl 6 program here!" at the top of
every single program, much in the same way its tiresome to write "int
Nathan Wiger wrote:
the more compatible
with Perl5 Perl6 is, the more likely it is to be accepted.
I don't believe that's necessarily true.
If Perl6 proves to be a significantly better Perl than Perl5,
people will adopt it, especially if they're inclined toward
the Perl philosophy anyway. (And
At 02:43 PM 4/5/2001 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Yep, something like this would be cool. But as Dan suggested we'll
probably have to let Larry clarify his intent here.
Somewhere or other Larry talked about this. Might've been in LA1, might've
been somewhere else.
I read it as "it
would be cool
OK, there's probably somthing simple I'm missing here, but...
1. Cuse 5 or Cuse 6 (and, in general, Cuse vervect) import the
definitions of the language as it existed at that time (more or less), or
die if they can't. (Or run through p52p6, or whatever.)
Advantage: matches existing
