Damn, was I that obvious?! ;) heh Seriously though, sidebar/off-list criticism is important and I definately don't want to discourage it. I certainly appreciate someone trying to look out for my interests. But from the beginning I thought I made it clear that I haven't followed the latest whatever regarding Perl6 and that I'm playing catch-up with everyone; so to get an email that basically told me I'm embarrassing myself for not knowing the latest whatever... it just struck a chord that I was compelled to react to. My apologies to Mr. X if it was more of an over-reaction. It may be a terrible waste of cyberpaper... and with all these slow broadband/DSL/T1 connections I'm sure these emails are choking everyone's bandwidth to the point they're cying for mercy... not to mention the wasted space on the 80+ gig hard drives (52G in the case of this laptop) but when the conversation dies down, I tend to like to throw things out there just to see what opinions bounce back. (Next week: A toss up between "What's better $foo_bar or $fooBar" and "Why hasn't Mr. Guttman taken legal action against CPAN for the URI namespace?" ;) ) Matthew ----- [DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in the message are not my own unless you agree with them. Don't assume I know anything before noon, and only then if there is an actively working and accessible coffee pot.] ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Matthew Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Boston Perl Mongers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 12:48 AM Subject: Re: [Boston.pm] Breaking "." to ruin "->" in Perl6?! > > > On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Matthew Brooks wrote: > > > I just got a friendly email from someone who is concerned that I'm > > embarrasing myself by discussing topics that were settled long ago and > > suggested that I do myself a favor and research everthing there is to know > > before making another public post. > > > > My apologies for trying to fill the lulls on a discussion list with > > discussion, how rude of me to be so inconsiderate. > > > > We now return you to the regularly unscheduled dead air... > > > > > well i can tell you disagree with his judgement and i don't blame you. but > what's more is that this topic really isn't dead in my mind either. people > are still disgusing in on small scales. larry and damian haven't finished > their disgusions on it i'm sure aswell. it's one of the biggest deals in > perl6. probablly the biggest is the sigil change which i happen to like > unlike most people i've talked to. what do you guys think about > attributes? i think they are reasonably good for variables but i get hazy > when they are applied to values. i'm not sure why. maybe cause i've never > seen it. anyone ever seen anything like it? i supose my biggest turn off > was the "0 is true" example. they should really retire that as an example > :) any way ignore the email. i'm still happy to disguss it. > -mike > > >
