Me wrote:
> > [concerns over conflation of post-processing and post-assertions]
>
> Having read A4 thoroughly, twice, this was my only real concern
> (which contrasted with an overall sense of "wow, this is so cool").
>
> --me
Yes, very, very cool.
I especially liked how RFC 88 was "accepted with caveats" and RFC 119
was "rejected but assimilated", given my personal involvement in that
topic. Seeing as how all the insufficiencies in RFC 88 that RFC 119 was
trying to cure have been cured extremely well, I am quite a happy
camper. I never cared what the words were as long as they make sense,
and Larry picked good words. There are no non-object exceptions, but
given the depth of object integration into the core concepts that seems
to have been accepted for Perl 6 (but was uncertain at the time of RFC
writing), that is not a problem.
Also very cool was the resulting switch statement. Its integration with
=~ and CATCH is brilliant. That RFC had a much too large table of DWIM
cases to understand, and Perl 6 still has quite a few, but all of them
seem to DWIM for me, whereas a number of the ones in the RFC seemed
quite contrived and obscure to me.
The only thing that seems somewhat questionable is the elimination of
bare blocks... handy for defining short term variables... a common
metaphor for reading a whole file was
{ local $/; $whole_file = <HANDLE>; }
but I guess putting "do" in front isn't too onerous for the reduced
ambiguity.
--
Glenn
=====
Due to the current economic situation, the light at the
end of the tunnel will be turned off until further notice.
