* Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/08/2001 10:11]:
>
> Nathan Wiger writes:
> : First off, before I forget to mention it, nice job on Apoc2 Larry! You are
> : the man. I know alot of us on p6l can seem like harsh critics at times, but
> : it's only because we love Perl so much. ;-)
>
> We'll have to do something about that. :-)
Yes, please, it's taking up my life writing so much of it! ;-)
[stuff that sounds great deleted]
> : Also, I like the *@b prototype slurping idea a lot, but I do worry about
> : potential confusion with the @*b special class notation. I'm wondering if
> : the latter can't be @::b?
>
> I wanted to keep true globals out of Main (presuming for the sake of
> argument that the bare :: still indicates the user's main package).
I guess that's what I was getting at: do we want :: to mean "main"? Is
this more useful that meaning "CORE"? The vast majority of the time I've
seen bare :: used I've seen stuff like this:
@::ARGV = @something;
unshift @::INC, '/my/lib';
If these are all going to be in CORE (personally, I'd much prefer a
different namespace than main), then it seems like a better use of ::
would be meaning CORE. It would actually reduce user confusion, since
@::INC and @::ARGV would mean the same thing in P6 as P5 (the package
will just have changed transparently).
-Nate
