Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Assuming Perl6 will be parsing Perl5 code? Hmmm. That's interesting.
> Forget p52p6 and the whole 80/20 thing, we could potentially hit the
> 100% mark.
Wow, that's cool!
> I'm unsure about the "module main" idea. I like that modules as a whole
> are strict/-w by default. But the "module main" tag causes the same
> problem Larry is opposed to with BASIC/PLUS "EXTEND". That is, every
> Perl 6 program begins with "module main". Maybe there's a better way to
> implement this? ("use 6.0" has much the same problem)
Some Perl 6 programs might start with "module eludom", or other choices.
There need be no monopoly on "main".
New RFC ideas?
Then it might be easier to write modules that are testable without a test
driver. If you run the module directly, some distinguished block of code
could be executed that wouldn't be if the module were "included" via
"require" or "use" (or similar replacement constructs).
Module also allows new semantics and/or syntax to be applied to POD
directives, I would think, so it could be reworked or extended without
incompatibility. New POD processors would note the module directive, and
adjust accordingly.
--
Glenn
=====
Even if you're on the right track,
you'll get run over if you just sit there.
-- Will Rogers
