Larry,
No need to respond to individual points, because you
are so clearly wrong. ;> But I would appreciate an
overall response of something like either "this ain't
happening, so give up" or "it remains a possibility,
but I'm not yet remotely convinced". Thanks for your
continued forbearance.
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Property should be an adjective, not a noun.
While I'm inclined to want to disagree with you
100% on that, I really only disagree 50%. :-)
--
John Porter
Yep, nice thought. I might actually pull my finger out and make a
contribution. Even if it's just documentation and configuration stuff.
- Original Message -
From: "H.Merijn Brand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nathan Torkington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
>: Have you considered allowing Unicode characters as alternatives to some of
>: the less pleasant looking bits? $foo<<1>> (where << and >> are the double
>: angle characters) as an alternative to $foo\Q[1] if the user's got the
>: ch
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:51:53AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
>> And btw . . . Wouldn't
>>
>> $thing has property
As in "door has redness" - ugh
vs "door is red".
Property should be an adjective, not a noun.
>>
>> make more sense than
>>
>
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Then Perl language variants could go the other way and be:
>
>Pern Nano Perl
Network perl - then we can say "here be dragons - but friendly ones..."
--
Nick Ing-Simmons
