2000-09-27-22:03:19 Randal L. Schwartz:
> So, I'd be happy to make everything an object under three conditions:
>
> 1) it doesn't interfere with *optimized* language constructs for
> the most common tasks
>
> 2) it isn't being put in just to satisfy some theory that making
> everything an object
2000-09-27-21:53:34 Michael Fowler:
> You can ask "why?" (or "why not?") until you're blue in the face,
> and the question would still be valid. He just doesn't want to,
> nor do I.
We may have a misunderstanding here about what "it" is.
> If $str = "foo" and m/foo/ are somehow magical objects,
2000-09-27-17:37:07 Randal L. Schwartz:
> f I want a language where everything is an object, I know
> where to find it.
If the only excuse for tossing this is some kind of gut revulsion
towards objects, I sure hope the RFC doesn't get withdrawn, and the
folks with that revulsion take some tummy m
2000-09-27-15:19:23 Simon Cozens:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:17:01PM -0400, Bennett Todd wrote:
> > I'd cite ruby as an indication that it shouldn't have to inflict any
> > performance hit
>
> *boggle*. That's classic. Ruby *is* a performance hit.
2000-09-27-15:08:10 Simon Cozens:
> Never too late to withdraw, sir. [1] The less crap we make Larry
> wade through, the better.
Regarding the specific issue at hand, could you please offer
something more specific than "you'd like it withdrawn"? Is there a
reason why it's impossible to implement
2000-09-27-05:28:01 Piers Cawley:
> Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:25:28AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> > > At the suggestion of others I've opted to freeze rather than
> > > withdraw.
> >
> > How might I persuade you to reconsider?
>
> I was kind
2000-09-25-12:04:44 Matt Youell:
> Unless I hear compelling arguments to the contrary, I'll be
> withdrawing RFC 161 on Tuesday due to lack of interest.
If the only grounds is lack of interest, please just freeze it. It
can be tossed later if people turn up strong counterarguments, like
difficult
2000-08-28-18:47:06 Tom Christiansen:
> It strikes me as a bit reminiscent of (one reason) why Larry
> didn't make a+b work on strings, since then while with numbers,
> a+b and b+a would be the same, with strings they would not be, and
> we have these rather deeply held convictions about such matt
