Jerrad Pierce wrote:
>
> That would be my hope too, but as I mentioned, it is seeming somewhat unlikely.
I don't think so. There's lots of proposals out there right now, but
only a very few actually break backwards compatibility. Plus, Larry's
not going to make Perl 6 look like, as Tom would say
>> Since everyone seems intent on breaking backward compatibility
>I don't think this is at all true, but I also don't think the overall
you seem to have ignored the paranthetical clause
>idea of a Perl5 module is necessarily a bad one.
>However, my hope would be that we do Perl 6 smoothly enough
Jerrad Pierce wrote:
>
> Since everyone seems intent on breaking backward compatibility
I don't think this is at all true, but I also don't think the overall
idea of a Perl5 module is necessarily a bad one.
However, my hope would be that we do Perl 6 smoothly enough and get the
docs written wel
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 04:43:56PM -0400, Jerrad Pierce wrote:
>Since everyone seems intent on breaking backward compatibility
>(Okay, so no one is explicitly setting out to do so, it is merely often
>dismissed as a non-issue). How about an RFC be done proposing that
>perl6 ship with a module name
Since everyone seems intent on breaking backward compatibility
(Okay, so no one is explicitly setting out to do so, it is merely often
dismissed as a non-issue). How about an RFC be done proposing that
perl6 ship with a module named Perl5. Which one can use to remedy
most breakings between the two
