On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Tom Christiansen writes:
> > >We may have to "agree to disagree".
> >
> > I shan't be doing that.
>
> I think you should, or at least agree to take it private and report
> back to the list once you both come to a decision. Once you've stated
> your position twice, there's not really much point in saying it a
> third time. It's a sign that the discussion is turning on itself.
Well, I've tried to clarify each restatement further and/or reframe it,
rather than repeating exactly the same thing. That said, if it comes to
the point where Tom and myself are the only ones interested in hashing out
the issue, I'd be happy to take it offline until the two of us either agree
or get tired of spinning in circles, then report back.
> I'm glad this thread hasn't turned into a flamewar, but the stakes are
> so low that I'm sure it could easily become one. I'd like to make
> sure that everyone, Deven, Tom, and the rest of the list, relax and
> realize that it's just a programming language.
This _is_ a minor issue. I'm very much looking forward to Perl 6; since
Perl 5 is such a joy to use, I fully expect Perl 6 to be even better. And
I'll be using it, even if the semantic anomaly I believe I see is there.
Deven
