At 11:02 AM -0800 1/23/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Yes, no doubt so, and good point. I think I should make it clear that my speculation on somehow unifying C<for> and C<map> is _not_ an attempt to gut A4, because I like A4 quite a lot. I'm just thinking out loud about how we could _extend_ A4 in one particular way.This, I think, is where I beg and plead--given how much effort it takes for Larry to get new apocalypses out, I'd really rather not make it so we want him to revisit old decisions while an apocalypse is in progress. (Yeah, for the week or two after one comes out, sure, just not when he's working on a new one) Either he'll be ignoring perl6-language (if I have to ask Robert to unsubscribe him :) or he'll be thrashing between the new stuff and revisiting the old stuff.
Yeah, it's selfish, but I can't get perl 6 implemented if you guys keep distracting Larry so he never gets the darned thing designed. :)
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
