Re: Perl 6 Summary for 2005-01-31 through 2004-02-8

2005-02-10 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 12:32:21PM +0100, Miroslav Silovic wrote: : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : : >>i think so but i can't read larry's mind (nor would i want to! :) : >> : >>XP = extreme programming : >>DBC = design by contract (or even designed by conway :) : >>MP = ?? : > : > : >Modu

Re: Perl 6 Summary for 2005-01-31 through 2004-02-8

2005-02-10 Thread Michele Dondi
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Miroslav Silovic wrote: Modular Programming David I think it's Metaprogramming. :) The only thing that sprung to my mind was "MetaPost"... Michele -- No one can ever predict all of the possible error conditions, of course; as soon as we write idiot-proof code, along comes a bet

Re: Perl 6 Summary for 2005-01-31 through 2004-02-8

2005-02-10 Thread Miroslav Silovic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i think so but i can't read larry's mind (nor would i want to! :) XP = extreme programming DBC = design by contract (or even designed by conway :) MP = ?? Modular Programming David I think it's Metaprogramming. :) Miro

Re: Perl 6 Summary for 2005-01-31 through 2004-02-8

2005-02-10 Thread David Landgren
Uri Guttman wrote: [...] i think so but i can't read larry's mind (nor would i want to! :) XP = extreme programming DBC = design by contract (or even designed by conway :) MP = ?? Modular Programming David

Re: Perl 6 Summary for 2005-01-31 through 2004-02-8

2005-02-10 Thread Markus Laire
John Macdonald wrote: The basic problem is that a junction does not work well with boolean operations, because the answer is usually "sometimes yes and sometimes no" and until you resolve which of those is the one you want, you have to proceed with both conditions. Well, just patch the boolean oper

Re: Perl 6 Summary for 2005-01-31 through 2004-02-8

2005-02-10 Thread Uri Guttman
> "MD" == Michele Dondi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: MD> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry Wall wrote: >> roadblocks thrown in their way. That's true not only for LP, but >> also for FP, MP, XP, AOP, DBC, and hopefully several other varieties MD> ^^ ^^^ MD> ^

Re: Perl 6 Summary for 2005-01-31 through 2004-02-8

2005-02-10 Thread Michele Dondi
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry Wall wrote: roadblocks thrown in their way. That's true not only for LP, but also for FP, MP, XP, AOP, DBC, and hopefully several other varieties ^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^ 1. 2. Ehmmm... sorry for the ignorance, but... 1. Fu

Re: Perl 6 Summary for 2005-01-31 through 2004-02-8

2005-02-09 Thread John Macdonald
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 11:57:17AM -0800, Ovid wrote: > --- Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Logic Programming in Perl 6 > > Ovid asked what logic programming in perl 6 would look like. No > > answer > > yet, but I suppose I can pick the low hanging fruit: as a > > limiting

Re: Perl 6 Summary for 2005-01-31 through 2004-02-8

2005-02-09 Thread Larry Wall
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 11:57:17AM -0800, Ovid wrote: : --- Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: : : >Logic Programming in Perl 6 : > Ovid asked what logic programming in perl 6 would look like. No : > answer : > yet, but I suppose I can pick the low hanging fruit: as a : > limiting

Re: Perl 6 Summary for 2005-01-31 through 2004-02-8

2005-02-09 Thread Ovid
--- Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Logic Programming in Perl 6 > Ovid asked what logic programming in perl 6 would look like. No > answer > yet, but I suppose I can pick the low hanging fruit: as a > limiting case > you could always back out the entire perl 6 grammar and i

Re: Perl 6 Summary for 2005-01-31 through 2004-02-8

2005-02-09 Thread Matthew Walton
Michele Dondi wrote: On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Matt Fowles wrote: pipe dreams Juerd wondered if he could mix = and ==> in a sane way. The answer appears to be no. Once you bring in ==> you should stick with it. Huh?!? It doesn't seem to me that the answer is 'no'. In fact C<< ==> >> is supposed

Re: Perl 6 Summary for 2005-01-31 through 2004-02-8

2005-02-09 Thread Michele Dondi
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Matt Fowles wrote: pipe dreams Juerd wondered if he could mix = and ==> in a sane way. The answer appears to be no. Once you bring in ==> you should stick with it. Huh?!? It doesn't seem to me that the answer is 'no'. In fact C<< ==> >> is supposed to be yet another ope