"David Whipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 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:
>
>
John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Whipp wrote:
> > > A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to
program
> > > in than some that do.
> >
> > The obvious reply is: "There's more than one way to do it"
>
> To which the obvious reply is:
>
> 'Although the P
At 12:31 PM 4/9/2001 +1000, Greg Boug wrote:
> > David Whipp wrote:
> > IOW, simply to have AWTDI is one of the worst reasons to add a
> > feature. If it doesn't make the language *better*, LEAVE IT OUT.
>
>The same is true for anything... Sometimes a minimalist approach
>is the right way to do i
Greg Boug wrote:
> Sometimes a minimalist approach
> is the right way to do it...
If one believes that, wrt programming languages, then one
is opposed to the philosophy of Perl. Oh well.
> The problem is to make sure when
> using a minimalist approach that you don't make it too small...
If y
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I, for
> one, would like to bundle code to handle all the common protocols (SMTP,
> NNTP, NNTP, Mail, HTTP, and SOAP, at least) in with perl 6, or with the
> perl 6 common library.
Absolutely. Can we engrave that in a PDD sometime soon?
>open PAGE, "http://www.perl
David Grove wrote:
> Does your "A" stand for "A" or "Another"?
The latter. Sorry, guess I shouldn't have abbreviated it.
> The second point is that, John, you forget that Rebol actually did have
> some degree of kewlness to it
I don't think I'm forgetting that. I'm just resisting the tempt
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 10:37:19AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Greg Boug wrote:
> > Sometimes a minimalist approach
> > is the right way to do it...
>
> If one believes that, wrt programming languages, then one
> is opposed to the philosophy of Perl. Oh well.
Uhm, no. Not at all. Just because t
At 12:38 PM 4/9/01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>>One liners are supposed to be SHORT. `--cmd' is LONG. If we MUST go
>>>the multiflagged way, why not reflect `-e' to get the `-6' flag? At
>>>the very least, I want a short flag!
>>
>>But by the time people learned to use '-6' we'd have Perl 7 ou
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Peter Scott wrote:
[ -e vs. --cmd vs. -6]
> Whatever we come up with, let's figure out how to avoid having to change it
> the next time we change Perl.
I don't think this is getting us anywhere useful.
What happens if perl7 is sufficiently different from perl6 in such a wa
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Peter Scott wrote:
> >I'm still trying to figure out why the flag needs to change. What's wrong
> >with -e? It seems perfectly serviceable.
>
> Because Larry said that by default Perl 6 would assume that its input was
> in Perl 5...? So we need a way to tell it that it isn
At 09:48 AM 4/9/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>At 12:38 PM 4/9/01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
One liners are supposed to be SHORT. `--cmd' is LONG. If we MUST go
the multiflagged way, why not reflect `-e' to get the `-6' flag? At
the very least, I want a short flag!
>>>
>>>But by th
> >I'm still trying to figure out why the flag needs to change. What's wrong
> >with -e? It seems perfectly serviceable.
>
> Because Larry said that by default Perl 6 would assume that its input was
> in Perl 5...? So we need a way to tell it that it isn't.
This one here's been bugging me f
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 11:48:43AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > Yes, we could throw damned well everything into
> > Perl, and you might want to consider that "equally valid".
>
> I might, but I wouldn't. That's precisely why I'm arguing
> against adding URLs as an intrinsic type!
Then you are
> This one here's been bugging me for a bit. Larry never said that perl 6
> would assume its input code was perl 5. Perl 6 will always assume its input
> is perl 6. The said (and I'm still trying to dig up the quote) is that
> we'll be enabling warnings and strict by default (as opposed to the
At 09:36 AM 4/9/01 +0200, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
> > > 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. maintain the "-e" switch as a backward compatibility flag,
At 05:21 PM 4/9/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 11:48:43AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > > Yes, we could throw damned well everything into
> > > Perl, and you might want to consider that "equally valid".
> >
> > I might, but I wouldn't. That's precisely why I'm arguing
>
At 09:35 AM 4/9/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>At 09:36 AM 4/9/01 +0200, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
>> > > 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.
At 11:16 AM 4/9/2001 -0600, Dan Brian wrote:
> > This one here's been bugging me for a bit. Larry never said that perl 6
> > would assume its input code was perl 5. Perl 6 will always assume its
> input
> > is perl 6. The said (and I'm still trying to dig up the quote) is that
> > we'll be enabli
> Still, I'll be really, *really* surprised if most perl code require any
> rewriting to run under perl 6. TomC's got quite a cache of old perl code,
> and I've got some mildly hairy perl 5 code that I want perl 6 to eat
> without complaint.
OK. But by the current thread, this ability of perl6
At 12:02 PM 4/9/2001 -0600, Dan Brian wrote:
> > Still, I'll be really, *really* surprised if most perl code require any
> > rewriting to run under perl 6. TomC's got quite a cache of old perl code,
> > and I've got some mildly hairy perl 5 code that I want perl 6 to eat
> > without complaint.
>
>
> There won't be any magic toggles to make typeglobs come back if they go
> away, or anything of that sort. Default behaviours like warning and
> strictness may vary depending on whether perl thinks it's parsing a module
> specifically written for perl 6 or not, but that's a far cry from parsin
At 12:31 PM 4/9/2001 -0600, Dan Brian wrote:
> > There won't be any magic toggles to make typeglobs come back if they go
> > away, or anything of that sort. Default behaviours like warning and
> > strictness may vary depending on whether perl thinks it's parsing a module
> > specifically written f
John Porter wrote
> > I'm sure you don't want to write "$a = new Integer '32'".
>
> Of course. That would be unbearably absurd.
> But how often do you have to write expressions that
> operate on three or more URLs? Or even two?
> How many perl instrinsics return URLs? How many
> perl intrinsics
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 12:58:23PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>
> Let's leave -e alone for now and worry about handling specific
> incompatibilities when we in fact have some specific incompatibilities to
> worry about.
Amen.
Tim.
> >The same is true for anything... Sometimes a minimalist approach
> >is the right way to do it... The problem is to make sure when
> >using a minimalist approach that you don't make it too small...
> I think the more important thing is to not add completely redundant
> features without a really
From: "Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> While I don't know if Larry will mandate it, I would like this code:
>
>open PAGE, "http://www.perl.org";
>while () {
> print $_;
>}
>
> to dump the HTML for the main page of www.perl.org to get dumped to
stdout.
>
Now I would like t
"Greg Boug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So open has to parse the string for a URL and magically use
> a http protocol? Not sure I like that idea... Granted, from a
> programmatical point of view that looks neater... But what
> about the case where you have a file called "http:" (a legal
> fi
At 11:39 AM 4/10/2001 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
>> Of course all of this has been discussed. (See
>> http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language-io%40perl.org/,
>> especially RFCs 100 and 14.)
>
>And is already available in a nearby parallel dimension:
>
> http://www.yetanot
I don't think that extreme positions ("minimalist!" "bloater!")
helps here. I think the important question to ask about any given
feature is: what will it let me do? Features with no good answer to
this question obviously have no place in core. Attempting to align
with one or another philosoph
Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> Uhm, no. Not at all. Just because there's more than one way to do it,
> doesn't mean that one must consider *all* ways equally worthy when one
> simple solution presents itself.
Huh? If I'm against one extreme, I must be for the other?
No, I'm reasonable. Like you.
>
30 matches
Mail list logo
