On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 10:39, Timothy Johnson wrote: > > At the risk of beating a dead and bloated horse, I have no doubt that I will > enjoy and take advantages of the improvements in Perl6, but I still don't > see the logic in changing operators. I mean, why make old code unusable? > If you can make a Perl5->6 converter, why can't you integrate Perl5 code > into Perl6? Like I said, I have no doubt that I will use the many new > features of Perl6 and enjoy them, but I think that sums up a lot of the gut > reactions of people that I have spoken to. <snip />
Because backward compatibility is the albatross around a products neck. If you don't believe that you only have to look as far as Microsoft's OSes or Intel's x86 lines. Sometimes you just have to burn bridges. Do I like the changes? No. Do I think the changes (in particular sigils staying the same all of the time and ' _ ' replacing '.' and '.' replacing '->') are good for Perl as time moves forward. Yes. >From the mouth of our august leader: <snip href="http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/10/02/apocalypse3.html?page=6";> Binary . (dot) This is now the method call operator, in line with industry-wide practice. </snip> This is a very important point. Most OO languages use the '.' operator to mean 'member of'. Even ANSI C (a most decidedly non-OO language) uses this meaning. This change is all about making it easier for people to move to Perl from other languages. -- Today is Prickle-Prickle the 21st day of Discord in the YOLD 3168 Wibble. Missile Address: 33:48:3.521N 84:23:34.786W -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
