On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 07:20:08AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> RFC 189 covers this.
So it does! Cool, I can withdraw mine *and* get the warm fuzzy feeling that
comes from like-thinking-of-great-minds.
RFC 307 is withdrawn!
--
How do I type "for i in *.dvi do xdvi i done" in a GUI?
(Discussio
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:25:28AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> Not an awful lot was said once this RFC was condensed down to "Everything
> becomes an object". I believe some implementation and conceptual hurdles
> exist which have discouraged more serious discussion. At the suggestion of
>
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:53:03AM -0700, Matt Youell wrote:
> Ok, no fair sniping after a freeze. You were warned. It's called email,
> people! Use it. Jeez...
Never too late to withdraw, sir. [1] The less crap we make Larry wade through,
the better.
[1] Well, up until the pregnancy, I guess.
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.
--
Within a computer, natural language is unnatural.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Matt Youell wrote:
> Would something less esoteric like Javascript be a better comparison?
Not really. Perl and JavaScript have very little in common, despite what
members of this list would like to do.
--
DEC diagnostics would run on a dead whale.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:16:36PM -0700, Matt Youell wrote:
> I open to hearing your reasons. The biggest reason it wasn't withdrawn is
> because someone said "hey don't do that, here's why". So give me a "why"
> already...
It doesn't feel right to me. It doesn't feel Perlish.
--
It took the c
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:43:45PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> As list chair, I ask either:
>1. The people discussing this clarify themselves
>2. The people discussing this please drop it
Ho hum. You've heard, I believe, my arguments now. I'm happy to drop the
matter, since it seems a ri
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:53:49PM -0700, Matt Youell wrote:
> > It doesn't feel right to me. It doesn't feel Perlish.
> That's it?
That isn't enough? Christ, man, this is Perl we're talking about. If Perl
isn't Perlish, something is wrong.
--
!07/11 PDP a ni deppart m'I !pleH
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 10:09:40PM -0400, Bennett Todd wrote:
> I think we proponents of this RFC believe it may well make _some_
> things easier, with the implementation of perl6 being among them.
Could you explain how this would make the implementation of Perl 6 easier?
I *really* can't see tha
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:31:59PM -0400, Bennett Todd wrote:
> How so? Seems to run straightforward comparable stuff a bit quicker
> than perl; doesn't seem to take any more effort to express a good
> many things.
This is becoming off topic; I have an interview with Matz regarding his
thoughts a
10 matches
Mail list logo
