On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:10:12 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:11:56AM -0500, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
>> My critique of the Perl 6 RFC process and following discussion is now
>> available at
>> http://www.perl.com/pub/2000/11/perl6rfc.html
>
>Agree 100% to every poin
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:00:31 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall wrote:
[about a better name for "local":]
>: interim()?
>
>I'm sorely tempted to make it:
>
>meanwhile our $foo = 2
That gives me visions of coroutines. "Meanwhile, back in Kansas, this is
what's happening..."
--
Bart.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:58:45 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall wrote:
>Yes, but if we go down that route, we're gonna end up with all the
>verbs at the end. Instead of "print @foo", we get something like:
>
>@foo wa kaite kudasai;
Dynamic FORTH. Cool. ;-)
--
Bart.
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:39:27 -0500, J. David Blackstone wrote:
> If enough people really feel that worried about Perl falling into
>the hands of a few, then something like this might be a good idea.
I am quite happy with Perl as it is now, so having no say in how it
should evolve, doesn't reall
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:24:12 +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
>FWIW, I agree entirely with Randal here.
How do you prove that you're not paranoid, that "they" are really after
you? How do you prove that putting aluminum foil on your head really
helps?
You can't.
That said, I can only say one thing: if y
Totday I got a message that my ISP's mail server had bounced a few
mails. It looks to me as my mailbox with the ISP was a bit full. But,
that's not the point of my mail here. It's this excerpt:
Here are the message numbers:
5315
5320
5318
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:54:17 -0400, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
>The IMPLEMENTATION section of the RFC is supposed to be mandatory, but
>there have been an awful lot of RFCs posted that have missing or
>evasive IMPLEMENTATION sections. I found more than 39% of all RFCs
>have a missing or incomplet
