Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 12:11:12PM -0400, John Porter wrote: > > Dan Sugalski wrote: > > > I personally would rather that perl 6 handle perl 6 code only, and leave > > > the compilation and interpretation of perl 5 code to perl 5. > > > > FWIW, I agre

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 12:11:12PM -0400, John Porter wrote: > Dan Sugalski wrote: > > I personally would rather that perl 6 handle perl 6 code only, and leave > > the compilation and interpretation of perl 5 code to perl 5. > > FWIW, I agree 100% with Dan. I'm curious to see how mutt will han

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Dan Sugalski wrote: > I personally would rather that perl 6 handle perl 6 code only, and leave > the compilation and interpretation of perl 5 code to perl 5. FWIW, I agree 100% with Dan. -- John Porter

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

At 08:23 PM 4/13/2001 -0700, jc vazquez wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Dave Storrs wrote: > > ... > > > We could then just add a -7 flag. > > > > Or, just use: > > > > #!/usr/bin/perl6 > > > >To solve this versioning issue, is there a way Perl 6 compiler can just >figure out what's being fed? I