Nathan Torkington writes:
: Steve Fink writes:
: > We are NOT here to construct a radically better language. We are here to
: > design the underpinnings of one.
:
: Perhaps. And by "perhaps", I mean "no".
:
: We're here to say what we'd like to see in the next version of Perl.
: These can be big things (currying) or small (hashes returned by
: functions instead of long lists). We're giving input to Larry, who
: will then design the language. We are just telling Larry what we
: would like, and why (i.e., which itch it would scratch).
And my current role is to turn everybody's view upside-down by pointing
out that currying is a small thing if you have the right hooks between
the lexer and the parser, while returning hashes instead of long lists
is a big thing if it implies the unification of object and hash
notations. How exactly do you "slice" an object, currently?
: > If you have an idea that will "add value" to Perl6 but can just as
: > well be done after the groundwork for the language has been laid :
> out, then please do not write up an RFC on it. It'll just distract.
: : I completely disagree. If you want something in Perl, now's the
time : to ask. We're going to have to nail down the language so people
can : begin writing grammars, data structures, regex engines, and so
on. : There's no such thing as a small change if that change comes
*after* : people have begun coding. That's called "feature creep", as
I'm sure : you know.
I don't mind "small" RFCs. I expect some number of them will be end up
being classified as: "Should be implemented in terms of X later." But
that doesn't mean they don't encode real desires.
: So I want to encourage people to submit RFCs. Yes, there are a lot of
: them. That's Larry's problem, not ours. It's one problem he's glad
: to have, I'm sure.
Number 5 is alive! Not disassemble! Need more input!
Larry
