>> Since everyone seems intent on breaking backward compatibility
>I don't think this is at all true, but I also don't think the overall
you seem to have ignored the paranthetical clause
>idea of a Perl5 module is necessarily a bad one.
>However, my hope would be that we do Perl 6 smoothly enough and get the
>docs written well enough to make it fairly obvious what has changed and
That would be my hope too, but as I mentioned, it is seeming somewhat unlikely.
>bad. My fear would be once people start using this, they lose sight of
>what's changed, and every Perl 6 script starts with a 'use Perl5' "just
>in case".
a) It's not out place to say what people should and should not do, merely to
provide the capabilities
b) That is not what it is intended for. What I envision it for is somehting
like: I have a buttload of legacy scripts. I just upgraded to RedHat n. It
ships with Perl 6, great! But wait Perl 6 doesn't play nice. So I just change
#!/usr/bin/perl to #!/usr/bin/perl -MPerl5 or the equivalent, and voila! No
more tears.
>Regardless, I *don't* think this should go in there. Some things *need*
>to look different if people are going to realize they're different.
>Bareword filehandles should be replaced with first-class $fileobjects
>(finally!). A 'use Perl5' that changes this would be doing the
>programmer a great disservice.
See above.
>Instead, Perl 6 should print out a warning like:
A C<want>ing or a C<die>? Warnings are fine, people will just keep using what
they want...
> $/
>If this went away, it would probably be for such a fundamental reason
>that keeping $/ and $\ around in any form would be a Very Bad Idea. So
>again, if we ditch this one, we should just ditch it.
>Plus, keep in mind that some things are rough 1:1 swaps, like date() for
>localtime().
Keep in the mind that this is not INTENDED to prevent programmers from using
new abilities, but simply to provide a high-level of compatibility for legacy
code.
> Hey! This is Perl 6! It's not Perl 5, deal. But it's cool, check the
>docs.
Which is exactly the kind of attitude I described at the beginning.
>(Only half-kidding...)
Yes, I see the kidding partg. It's the half that bothers me...
--
#!/usr/bin/perl -nl
BEGIN{($,,$0)=("\040",21);@F=(sub{tr[a-zA-Z][n-za-mN-ZA-M];print;});
$_="Gnxr 1-3 ng n gvzr, gur ynfg bar vf cbvfba.";&{$F[0]};sub t{*t=sub{};
return if rand()<.5;$_="Vg'f abg lbhe ghea lrg, abj tb.";&{$F[0]};$_=0;}
sub v{print map sprintf('%c', 2**7-2**2),(1 .. $0);}&v;}{$_++;$_--;$_||=4;
if($_>>2||($_<<2>12)){$_="Vainyvq ragel";&{$F[0]};last;}&t;$0-=$_;$_="Lbh jva";
die(&{$F[0]}) if !($0-1);$0-=$0%2?$0>2?2:1:$0<=5?$0>2?3:1:rand>.5?1:3;
$_="V jva";die(&{$F[0]}) if !($0-1>1);}&v __END__ http://pthbb.org/
MOTD on Pungenday, the 24th of Bureaucracy, in the YOLD 3166:
Snoochie Boochie Noochies!
