On Sun, Aug 06, 2000 at 12:35:58AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I do *not* want to see any more obscenity of name calling here. It does
> nothing to advance the purposes of this working group, and discourages
> people from contributing.
You're quite right, I went too far there. Yes, I was f
> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SC> On Sat, Aug 05, 2000 at 11:47:47PM +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
>> I feel that your RFC misses the inclusive nature of perl.
SC> Then I withdraw it. Perl should not stay Perl, fuck it. Call me when it's
SC> time to get coding.
I think y
On Sat, Aug 05, 2000 at 06:33:10PM +0900, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
>> (Remember Larry's slide with the Perl influences on it?
>> Linguistics, Art, Common Sense *and* Computer Science.)
>
>I know. My point was that we shouldn't forget the first three in blind
>pursuit of the forth.
I'm trying to dec
On Sat, Aug 05, 2000 at 10:54:25PM +0900, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 05, 2000 at 11:47:47PM +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
>> I feel that your RFC misses the inclusive nature of perl.
>
>Then I withdraw it. Perl should not stay Perl, fuck it. Call me when it's
>time to get coding.
This langua
On Sat, Aug 05, 2000 at 11:47:47PM +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
> I feel that your RFC misses the inclusive nature of perl.
Then I withdraw it. Perl should not stay Perl, fuck it. Call me when it's
time to get coding.
--
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.
Simon Cozens wrote:
> Right. You don't seem to be getting it, so I'm going to have to be harsh
here.
>
Are you sure? Is it possible that it's just that this isn't a side of
programming you've had need for or are familiar with yourself? TMTOWTDI, you
know, even if you're way is the best way.
> You
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 11:31:30PM -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
> > not because language design is a fun thing to do of an evening.
>
> Huh? You mean I'm supposed to pretend to not enjoy myself? I keep
> all my hair shirts at work, thanks.
Don't be stupid. I said we're *primarily* doing it for the good
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 02:50:39PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> Its a higher level construct. Akin to telling your interior decorator
> that you'd like the furniture to match the wallpaper. You've left
> out all the details but the decorator can easily see what you're talking
> about.
>
> So ca
Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> not because language design is a fun thing to do of an evening.
Huh? You mean I'm supposed to pretend to not enjoy myself? I keep
all my hair shirts at work, thanks.
> If that's the case, nobody wins if we bend the Perl language out of all
> recognition, because it w
At 02:17 PM 8/4/00 -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>I'm with Chaim on this one. One of the things I *love* about perl is
>that it doesn't constrain me to a particular paradigm and moreover it
>almost naturally supports other paradigms (like functional
>programming). I'm always touting this as
> > "PRL" == Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> PRL> =item Functional Programming
>
> PRL> Just because Perl has a C operator, this doesn't make it a
> PRL> functional programming language. Perl has always been squarely
> PRL> procedural, and so things like C and C and other
I'm not quite buying into this.
There are some things that are just easier with this style of thinking.
Its a higher level construct. Akin to telling your interior decorator
that you'd like the furniture to match the wallpaper. You've left
out all the details but the decorator can easily see wha
On Sat, Aug 05, 2000 at 01:26:53AM +0900, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 09:05:38AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>> Suggestion: Can we manually renumber this "RFC 0"? This should be the
>> first one at the top of the list, not buried somewhere within. my($.02).
>
>We *shouldn't* need t
Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maintainer: Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> =item Object Orientation
>
> Some things just don't need heavy object orientation. B things
> don't need heavy object orientation, and it's not Perlthink to force
> programmers into onerous r
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> =item Functional Programming
>
> Just because Perl has a C operator, this doesn't make it a
> functional programming language. Perl has always been squarely
> procedural,
It has also been roundly object-oriented and rectangularly functional,
at least sinc
Hear, hear!
--
Kirrily Robert -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://netizen.com.au/
Open Source development, consulting and solutions
Level 10, 500 Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3000
Phone: +61 3 9614 0949 Fax: +61 3 9614 0948 Mobile: +61 410 664 994
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 09:05:38AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Suggestion: Can we manually renumber this "RFC 0"? This should be the
> first one at the top of the list, not buried somewhere within. my($.02).
We *shouldn't* need to spell this out for people.
It really, really terrifies me that we
Suggestion: Can we manually renumber this "RFC 0"? This should be the
first one at the top of the list, not buried somewhere within. my($.02).
-Nate
Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://tmtowtdi.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITLE
>
> Perl shoul
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://tmtowtdi.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Perl should stay Perl.
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Aug 4 2000
Version: 1
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 28
=
19 matches
Mail list logo
