On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 03:42:25PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> I don't think you can say (as Larry has) that you want to be able to
> fully re-define the language from within itself and still impose the
> constraint that "it can't confuse people who don't know anything about
> my module."
>
> You might argue that Language::Dutch should never ship with the core...
> that's a valid opinion, but SOMEONE is going to write it. It'd be a kind
> of strange form of censorship for CPAN not to accept it. After all,
> there's more than one way to say it... isn't there?
While it may be possible to do it, and while it may be an interesting
exercise to implement it, that doesn't mean that anyone *using* it for
anything other than a joke isn't a blithering idiot.
> > I'm not even sure I like the *possibility* of using non-ascii letters in
> > identifiers, even.
> I think we already have Latin-1 in identifiers...
more's the pity.
> Let's see about UTF-8....
> pugs> my $??? = 1;
> undef
> pugs> $???;
> 1
I see a sequence of three question marks, there's no funny foreign
characters there. I have to confess to being surprised that $??? is
legal.
--
David Cantrell | Benevolent Dictator Of The World
May your blessings always outweigh your blotches!
-- Dianne van Dulken,
in alt.2eggs...
