Attribution lists are getting a bit complex. This is in response to what Piers wrote
on Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 03:50:44PM +.
DKS
> > [specifying types]
> > Hm. I'm way short on sleep today, so I'm probably missing something,
> > but I don't see why Perl can't sort this out without a specific
Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 09:31:41AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > It seems like Perl6 is moving farther and farther away from Perl5's
>> > (almost) typelessness.
>>
>> It depends what you mean by typed. Perl h
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 09:31:41AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It seems like Perl6 is moving farther and farther away from Perl5's
> > (almost) typelessness.
>
> It depends what you mean by typed. Perl has always had strongly typed
> *values* (which s
The Perl Summary for the week ending 20021215
Hi, and welcome to the first summary prepared on my shiny second hand
TiBook (no, it wasn't a gift from a grateful summary reader, it was
bought from a friend who was upgrading, gifts from grateful summary
readers are, of course, still w
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 09:48:56AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >Simon Cozens wrote:
> >> Once again we're getting steadily closer to inventing Ruby.
> >
> >Agreed, but I don't think this is necessarily a Bad Thing.
>
> Disagreed--we're getting steadily closer to inventing Smalltalk. :)
Silly r
Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 03:58:54PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
>> > From: Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > My understanding was that in Perl6, you could use pretty much anything
>> > for a hashkey--string, number, object, whatever, and that it did not
>>
