On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 12:38:27PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 02:24 PM 5/27/2001 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> >Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> >I'd like to see activity on the topics behind:
> > * perl6-stdlib
> > * perl6-build
> >Dan, Graham--should these lists persist in their current for
> What is Camel4 going to look like for perl 6? What is going to be required
> knowledge for perl6. Let's just start by looking at Apoc2. To use perl,
> you'll have to know Unicode, you'll have to know OO, you'll have to
> understand references. Those are three very technical concepts that mak
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 01:51:24PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Dan Sugalski writes:
> > People think they *must* know all the core bits of a language, and they
> > think that consists of all the stuff we ship with perl. (And, let's face
> > it, we ship a *lot* of stuff with perl) It's like
> In this thread I've heard both "perl6 is too different from perl5" and
> "perl6 is too similar to perl5", without anybody naming the specific
> things that are problems and suggesting solutions.
The old adage about programmers being like cats, constantly at the
wrong side of the door, or at the
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 05:02:39PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >So now the changes are too SMALL, and we should have a language that
> > is completely different so that you won't be confused when you edit
> > different scripts?
>
> Speaking
> If you talk that way, people are going to start believing it. The
> typical Perl 6 program is not going to look very different from the
> typical Perl 5 program. The danger of us continually talking about
> the things we want to change is that people will forget to notice the
> tremendous amou
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:43:14PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> At 05:30 PM 2/20/01 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> >>Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> >> > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there
> >> > be a new one
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:01:25PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > > As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a diff
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name.
Likewise. What's wrong with builders?
> -- Johan
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is '
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:48:27PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 08:57:02PM -0500, Bryan C . Warnock wrote:
> > Particularly after this:
> >
> > http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?tag=ltnc
>
> "Innovation-- you keep using this wo
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 06:29:47PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Nice. An apprentice is an administrative assistant with a career
> path. If people are happy to do this, we'd be happy to use them. The
I like the idea too.
> chairs proved weak at reporting on their list's activities (I kno
Comparing the perl6-language and the perl5-porters simply doesn't fly.
It's not even comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing
a busy market place and a faculty lunch.
In the first case we are talking about a crowd of people most of which
do not know each other, do not know what the peopl
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 10:42:34AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:14:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Not in the p5p sense, at least. Regardless of the levels of disapproval,
> > generally the disapproval was voiced with at least some courtesy. p5p is
> > rather less
> I'd really hate it if the sort of people who use Java were to join
> the perl camp, then we'd be tainted by their work.
> ...
> program, never could, never will, just read trade magazines that
> tell them what they should babble at meetings to avoid getting
> caught out as completely pointless a
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 03:42:41PM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
> > When an article
> > in perl.com is so overwhelmingly negative about the work so far, do
Yup. I can't see www.sun.com carrying
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 06:08:59PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:44:50AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > Firstly, now, for the first time in the Perl history, we opened up the
> > floodgates, so the speak, and had at least some sort of (admitte
I agree partly, but not fully.
Where I agree is that we did a lousy job in having tighter control by
not requiring authors to record the opposing opinions or pointed out
deficiencies, not requiring more work on the implementation side, not
bestowing more power to the chairs/moderators, and so on.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 06:47:59PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 10:32:32AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> > Rename the local operator? Yeah, I think we ought to do that. It
> > confuses people when we call it local(). The problem is, of course,
> > that this is not a perfect
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 03:56:00AM -0700, Carlos Ramirez wrote:
> Here's a listing of 'recommended reading' gathered from this list
> (provided by Nat). I'm not sure if this will be a permanent place for
> this link, but for now you can get it here. If i left out a book or if
> you have a new sugg
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 04:35:42PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> http://www.bsdtoday.com/2000/October/News306.html
Oops, sorry about that, didn't read Ziggy's message first...
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we us
http://www.bsdtoday.com/2000/October/News306.html
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
21 matches
Mail list logo
