* 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 be
* 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
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 shallow.
I
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], 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
