> > Some arguments for XML:
> >
> > - Done right, it could be easier to write and maintain
> Pod is already "done right", and it's already spectacularly
> easy to write and maintain. XML is a hammer in search of nail.
Actually, a better analogy would be a its a sledge hammer
in search of a fin
> 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 Perl Slogan is "There's More Than One Way
> to Do
> >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
> > 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.
>
> Well, this seems innocent enough, but how far
o makes
the ol' perl5
open FH, "|/usr/bin/foo";
make a lot more sense. Using something like
open "p", "/usr/bin/foo";
just wouldn't have the same ring to it. Aside from which, it gets even worse
when you consider how you would have to ch
Apologies if these comments have already been noted...
> my $PI : constant = 3.1415926;
> my @FIB : constant = (1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21);
> my %ENG_ERRORS : constant = (E_UNDEF=>'undefined', E_FAILED=>'failed');
>
> Constants can be lexically or globally scoped (or any other new scoping
> lev
