Re: syntax for accessing multiple versions of a module

2005-10-19 Thread Nate Wiger
Stevan Little wrote: Nicholas, This is addressed in S11, here is a link: http://search.cpan.org/~ingy/Perl6-Bible/lib/Perl6/Bible/S11.pod To summarize, the syntax to load the modules is: use Dog-1.2.1; While the syntax to create a specific version of a module is: my Dog-1.3.4-cpan:JRA

Re: syntax for accessing multiple versions of a module

2005-10-19 Thread Nate Wiger
Larry Wall wrote: Well, we thought about opening it up like that, but we really kinda need to establish what is an official part of the "long name" for uniqueness purposes, and try to avoid too much visual clutter in standard usage. Going with that... I would think that the "official" part is r

Re: syntax for accessing multiple versions of a module

2005-10-19 Thread Nate Wiger
Larry Wall wrote: This is one of those accomodations to the real world, like everyone agreeing on a standard URI format. We're really trying to keep these module names close to what you'd see as the name of, say, the corresponding .rpm file. These modules have to have names that work outside of

Re: syntax for accessing multiple versions of a module

2005-10-20 Thread Nate Wiger
Larry Wall wrote: I think there can be some kind of community metainformation that sets defaults appropriately. And if not, the site/project can certainly establish defaults. On the other hand, a lot of projects do simply want to specify the version and author explicitly eveyr time, and they'd

Re: syntax for accessing multiple versions of a module

2005-10-20 Thread Nate Wiger
Rob Kinyon wrote: On 10/20/05, Nate Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And, it shares alot with other languages people know and use. That's more because languages are incestuous (like Perl) instead of languages independently arriving at the same conclusions. Yes, the "while&q

Re: syntax for accessing multiple versions of a module

2005-10-20 Thread Nate Wiger
Nicholas Clark wrote: $1 is a prime example. $0 means the program name (all scopes). $1 is the first match. It's been that way for a very, very, very long time, and it works just great. There is no *compelling* reason to change this, other than to satisfy a few people that think it "should be

Re: syntax for accessing multiple versions of a module

2005-10-20 Thread Nate Wiger
Luke Palmer wrote: On 10/20/05, Nate Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: $1 is a prime example. $0 means the program name (all scopes). $1 is the first match. It's been that way for a very, very, very long time, and it works just great. There is no *compelling* reason to change this,

$1 change issues [was Re: syntax for accessing multiple versions of a module]

2005-10-20 Thread Nate Wiger
Luke Palmer wrote: Okay, I may still be missing your point, so let me try to summarize just to be sure we're on the same page: You say that the thing that is going to hinder migration to Perl 6 is the fact that it's different from Perl 5. Intentionally trite oversimplification. My problem is

Re: $1 change issues [was Re: syntax for accessing multiple versions of a module]

2005-10-21 Thread Nate Wiger
Luke Palmer wrote: Every regex engine in every language uses $1 or \1. This includes Java, JavaScript, C, PHP, Python, awk, sed, the GNU regex libs, etc. Somehow other languages seem ok with this, because it's a widely-used convention. Perl 6's patterns are _not_ regexes anymore. But I doubt t

Re: Perl 6 fears

2005-10-24 Thread Nate Wiger
Joshua Gatcomb wrote: On 10/24/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Feel free to add your own, or fears you heard about! FEAR: The Perl6 process is driving away too many good developers FEAR: Perl6 will not be as portable as p5 FEAR: Perl6 is un-necessary and the time, money, and resources