I may be completely off base here, but I think this whole discussion
would be better suited for perl6-internals. A packaging system would
not be a feature of the language itself, but of its implementation.
Don't confuse Perl and perl.
--
matt
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 22:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Lang
> Agreed; that's why I'd include "last" for newbies to use. "0th" as "last"
> works only as an extension of "-1st" as "first from last", "-2nd" as
> "second from last", and so on; you have positive numbers counting from the
> first, and negat
On 9/5/04 8:31 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
> John Siracusa writes:
>> I think the most important question was at the end of my last message:
>> is something even *possible* without core support? Taking a set of
>> scripts and libs and making single-file, compiled (or "precompiled"
>> bytecode or whatev
John Siracusa writes:
> I think the most important question was at the end of my last message:
> is something even *possible* without core support? Taking a set of
> scripts and libs and making single-file, compiled (or "precompiled"
> bytecode or whatever) executable that will run on all platform
On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 19:47, Larry Wall wrote:
> This synopsis summarizes the non-existent Apocalypse 9, which
> discussed in detail the design of Perl 6 data structures. It was
> primarily a discussion of how the existing features of Perl 6 combine
> to make it easier for the PDL folks to write
On 9/4/04 11:42 PM, chromatic wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-09-04 at 18:44, John Siracusa wrote:
>> To bring it home, I think packaging and distribution is important enough to
>> warrant a standard, core-supported implementation.
>
>> I think the "specially structured dir of files" and its single-file pac
On Sun 05 Sep, David Green wrote:
> On 2004/9/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lang) wrote:
> (Nice Subject change, I almost missed it!)
>
> >Larry Wall wrote:
> > > Yow. Presumably "nth" without an argument would mean the last.
> >
> >If it means the last, why not just use C?
>
> Conflict with
John Williams writes:
> BTW, there should be no ambiguity between C and C<''>,
> because one occurs where an operator is expected, and one occurs where
> a term is expected.
There may be no ambiguity for the Perl engine, but any use of C<'> for
anything other than quoting makes life hard for synt
John Siracusa writes:
> To bring it home, I think packaging and distribution is important
> enough to warrant a standard, core-supported implementation. Yes,
> it's great to be able to roll your own solution, but forcing the issue
> by providing nothing but the most basic features required to boo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Siracusa) writes:
> there's an official way, you'll certainly see less wheel reinvention than in
> Perl 5. This is a good thing.
That is only true if you accept the fundamentalist principle that one should
never reinvent wheels. If that were true, then we wouldn't be worki
10 matches
Mail list logo
