Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not a comment at all on it? Was I accidentally unsubscribed to
> perl6-language?
> *tap* *tap* is this thing on?
Using module/class instead of package is exactly the same route that LaTeX
took in the transition from 2.09 to 2e. It works quite we
[Note: This a plain text repost. The original came across as HTML...]
> [25]RFC 73: All Perl core functions should return objects
[...]
> I'm thinking that the solution is better abstract type support
> for data values that happen to be represented internally by C
> structs. We get bogged dow
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Assuming Perl6 will be parsing Perl5 code? Hmmm. That's interesting.
> Forget p52p6 and the whole 80/20 thing, we could potentially hit the
> 100% mark.
Wow, that's cool!
> I'm unsure about the "module main" idea. I like that modules as a whole
> are strict/-w by default.
Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Not a comment at all on it? Was I accidentally unsubscribed to
> perl6-language?
>
> *tap* *tap* is this thing on?
>
> Nat
Yes, well, my first impulse was to reply, making appropriate "Wow,
that's cool" type of remarks, and then I decided to let it sink in a few
days,
Glenn Linderman wrote:
> New RFC ideas?
Please, dear God, no. :-)
Nat
> And what would be a better way of testing this out than being able to
> make perl6 parse and run perl5 code correctly? (and I think that a key component
> ways of making this workable would be to promote a descendent of
> Parse::RecDescent to be the mechanism that parses perl for *real* and is
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 01:21:47PM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> > I'm unsure about the "module main" idea. I like that modules as a whole
> > are strict/-w by default. But the "module main" tag causes the same
> > problem Larry is opposed to with BASIC/PLUS "EXTEND". That is, every
> > Perl 6 p
Thus it was written in the epistle of Michael G Schwern,
> I think he's saying that its annoying to have to write any sort of tag
> that says "Hey, I'm starting a new Perl 6 program here!" at the top of
> every single program, much in the same way its tiresome to write "int
> main(...)" in every C
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:10:47PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I think he's saying that its annoying to have to write any sort of tag
> that says "Hey, I'm starting a new Perl 6 program here!" at the top of
> every single program, much in the same way its tiresome to write "int
> main(...)"
At 12:15 PM 4/5/2001 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>1. Breaking @foo vs. $foo[]
>
>This is interesting, and in my gut I like it. Many people I've worked
>with end up writing:
>
>@foo[0]
>
>Which works. But then, they're completely confused by why:
>
>%foo{key}
>
>Doesn't.
Or why
@foo[0]
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 03:50:04PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> (We could even make
> perl 5 completely OO if you wanted to write some code for the
> SCALAR/HASH/ARRAY packages. Presumably in C, if you wanted to do:
>
>$foo = "12";
>print $foo->POK;
>
> to retrieve the POK flag, say.)
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 11:42:23AM +, David Grove wrote:
> > Apocalypse is a greek word meaning that which comes out from (apo- eq
> away
> > from) hiding, i.e., revelation. In the biblical sense, it refers to
> > revealing that which was previo
At 08:54 PM 4/5/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 03:50:04PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > (We could even make
> > perl 5 completely OO if you wanted to write some code for the
> > SCALAR/HASH/ARRAY packages. Presumably in C, if you wanted to do:
> >
> >$foo = "12";
> >
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 12:28:34PM -0600, Dan Brian wrote:
> I was very glad to see Larry address RFC 28 in the way he did; this will
> be quoted often in the future, both concerning being "needlessly fearful"
> of Perl adopting a different language paradigm, as well as the "essence"
> of Perl bei
Ted Ashton wrote:
>
> Thus it was written in the epistle of Michael G Schwern,
> > I think [Nate]'s saying that its annoying to have to write any tag
> > that says "Hey, I'm starting a new Perl 6 program here!" at the top of
> > every single program, much in the same way its tiresome to write "in
Ted Ashton wrote:
> Perhaps it could be
> 1) If the code uses "module" or
> 2) If the executable called ends in 6.
Huh? -- perl4.036
--
John Porter
Glenn Linderman wrote:
> Then it might be easier to write modules that are testable without a test
> driver. If you run the module directly, some distinguished block of code
> could be executed that wouldn't be if the module were "included" via
> "require" or "use" (or similar replacement constru
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 05:15:56PM -0400, Ted Ashton wrote:
> 2) If the executable called ends in 6.
ETOOMAGICAL. Shades of zip/unzip here. On some systems zip and unzip
are just hard links to the same binary. It figures out what it
supposed to do by what name is called. Very magical. Ve
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> the more compatible
> with Perl5 Perl6 is, the more likely it is to be accepted.
I don't believe that's necessarily true.
If Perl6 proves to be a significantly better Perl than Perl5,
people will adopt it, especially if they're inclined toward
the Perl philosophy anyway. (An
> One-liners run on a Perl 6 binary should just be Perl 6 code. Do we
> really have to worry about backwards compatibility with one liners?
>
> Hmm... programs that have perl one-liners inside them might be
> troublesome.
Why not:
perl -e 'perl 5 one-liner'
perl --cmd 'perl 6 one-liner'
i.e
From: Simon Cozens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:10:47PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >
> > I think he's saying that its annoying to have to write any
> > sort of tag that says "Hey, I'm starting a new Perl 6 program
> > here!" at the top of every single program, mu
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> ETOOMAGICAL. Shades of zip/unzip here. On some systems zip and unzip
> are just hard links to the same binary. It figures out what it
> supposed to do by what name is called. Very magical. Very bad.
Well, the proposed trick for perl would be bad; what zip does
isn'
All I could think was, "good thing the 3rd Camel came out before Larry
used it to classify RFCs." :)
I am glad RFC 141 was rejected, even if Larry claims it was for
entertainment value. For the same reason people feel the need to explain
the use of "apocalypse", the design of Perl 6 should not fo
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:46:12PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Not a comment at all on it? Was I accidentally unsubscribed to
> perl6-language?
>
> *tap* *tap* is this thing on?
>
> Nat
Me, I've been racking my brain to figure out whether Damian is Famine,
War, Plague, or Death...
--
$
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 11:42:23AM +, David Grove wrote:
> Apocalypse is a greek word meaning that which comes out from (apo- eq away
> from) hiding, i.e., revelation. In the biblical sense, it refers to
> revealing that which was previously unseen or unheard, hidden behind a
> veil of worlds
Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
> *tap* *tap* is this thing on?
(lame attempt at a "feedback" joke - ha ha)
Like others, I'm amazed. It looks like Perl 6 is going to be incredibly
coherent, despite the RFC frenzy. For now I have mainly compliments, and
a few thoughts:
1. Breaking @foo vs. $foo
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 12:15:19PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> That is, every
> Perl 6 program begins with "module main". Maybe there's a better way to
> implement this? ("use 6.0" has much the same problem)
"IDENTIFICATION DIVISION"
--
DISCLAIMER:
Use of this advanced computing technology doe
Title: http://dev.perl.org/rfc/73.html
> [25]RFC 73: All Perl core functions should return objects
>
[...]
>
> I'm thinking that the solution is better abstract type support
> for data values that happen to be represented internally by C
> structs. We get bogged down when we try to tran
At 11:46 PM 4/4/01 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Not a comment at all on it? Was I accidentally unsubscribed to
>perl6-language?
>
>*tap* *tap* is this thing on?
Some of us got to reading Damian's design for Perl 5+i which was announced
at the same time and are suffering from blown minds aft
Okay, you want comments, I got yer comments...
I am, naturally, most interested in this part:
>[24]RFC 16: Keep default Perl free of constraints such as warnings and
>strict.
(Keep the groans to a dull roar, please.)
> To me, one of the overriding issues is whether it's possible to
>tran
Peter Scott wrote:
> Some of us got to reading Damian's design for Perl 5+i which was announced
> at the same time and are suffering from blown minds after learning how fast
> he wrote the thing.
Consider how blown his mind is after WRITING it :-)
> Oh, and who put him up to that, eh?
I'm sure
I tried to comment on "apocalypse" in Larry's most likely sense, but there
was a mail flub (now corrected).
Apocalypse is a greek word meaning that which comes out from (apo- eq away
from) hiding, i.e., revelation. In the biblical sense, it refers to
revealing that which was previously unseen or
Piers Cawley wrote:
> be "If it's a word for a concept we don't
> actually have a word for, and it's not a complete and utter bastard to
> pronounce/spell then nick it."
s/not//;
s/nick/bastardize/;
:-)
--
John Porter
In his Apoc, he talks about thrashing, and not being able to get his brain around
things.
I'm dealing with that now. Give me a little more time to divide it into smaller
portions and chew it up.
JJ
* Nathan Torkington ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010405 02:50]:
> Not a comment at all on it? Was I a
At 08:25 PM 4/5/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 12:15:19PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > That is, every
> > Perl 6 program begins with "module main". Maybe there's a better way to
> > implement this? ("use 6.0" has much the same problem)
>
>"IDENTIFICATION DIVISION"
For
> >Whoa. This is so simple yet so sublime. It solves so many issues in one
> >swoop. Cool.
> >
> >Assuming Perl6 will be parsing Perl5 code? Hmmm. That's interesting.
> >Forget p52p6 and the whole 80/20 thing, we could potentially hit the
> >100% mark.
>
> I'd really rather not, and I don't think
Probably, I'm just confused, but ...
doesn't
> RFC PSA Title
> --- --- -
> 16 bdb Keep default Perl free of constraints such as warnings and strict.
^
and
> 73 adb All Perl core functions should return objects
^
mean this
>
> >And what would be a better way of testing this out than being able to
> >make perl6 parse and run perl5 code correctly?
>
> Well, I think it'd be easier to write a proper C parser for perl. Or an APL
> one. Heck, depending on what Larry does a Forth one might be easier. Perl 5
> has a *lot*
At 02:43 PM 4/5/2001 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>Yep, something like this would be cool. But as Dan suggested we'll
>probably have to let Larry clarify his intent here.
Somewhere or other Larry talked about this. Might've been in LA1, might've
been somewhere else.
>I read it as "it
>would be co
At 01:33 PM 4/5/2001 -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > >Whoa. This is so simple yet so sublime. It solves so many issues in one
> > >swoop. Cool.
> > >
> > >Assuming Perl6 will be parsing Perl5 code? Hmmm. That's interesting.
> > >Forget p52p6 and the whole 80/20 thing, we could potentially hit the
OK, there's probably somthing simple I'm missing here, but...
1. C or C (and, in general, C>) import the
definitions of the language as it existed at that time (more or less), or
die if they can't. (Or run through p52p6, or whatever.)
Advantage: matches existing precedent. The real
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 06:12:30PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > ETOOMAGICAL. Shades of zip/unzip here. On some systems zip and unzip
> > are just hard links to the same binary. It figures out what it
> > supposed to do by what name is called. Very magical. Very bad
Better late than never! Chip's provided the slides for last year's
Topaz talk at TPC5.
Nat
(Ask, could you put them on dev.perl.org? Thanks!)
topaz-v2.pdf
On 4/5/01 6:36 PM, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Better late than never! Chip's provided the slides for last year's
> Topaz talk at TPC5.
Ah, the speed of the Internet age! ;)
(but you're right, so thanks :)
-John
> "Nathan" == Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Nathan> This is interesting, and in my gut I like it. Many people I've worked
Nathan> with end up writing:
Nathan>@foo[0]
Nathan> Which works.
"Works", for some odd meaning of the word "works". Ever try this:
@foo[0] = ;
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, A. C. Yardley wrote:
> > 16 bdb Keep default Perl free of constraints such as warnings and strict.
> > 73 adb All Perl core functions should return objects
> ^
> [...]
> >I might at some point add a ``d'' for Deferred, if I really think it's
> >
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 01:33:22PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > I'd really rather not, and I don't think that was Larry's intention. I
> > think rather it was "perl 5 warning/strict levels", not "parse as perl 5
> > code". At least I hope that's the case...
> well, personally I would rather
47 matches
Mail list logo
