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 well enough to make it fairly obvious what has changed and
how to 'use Format'. The 'use Perl5' hides this from the user, which is
bad. My fear would be once people start using this, they lose sight of
what's changed, and every Perl 6 script starts with a 'use Perl5' "just
in case".
> Things it could do (based on current proposals):
> open BAREWORD support through overloading of open
Regardless, I *don't* think this should go in there. Some things *need*
to look different if people are going to realize they're different.
Bareword filehandles should be replaced with first-class $fileobjects
(finally!). A 'use Perl5' that changes this would be doing the
programmer a great disservice.
Instead, Perl 6 should print out a warning like:
open BAREWORD, "<$file";
Looks like a Perl 5 open, see docs for new open syntax at line 1.
> $/
If this went away, it would probably be for such a fundamental reason
that keeping $/ and $\ around in any form would be a Very Bad Idea. So
again, if we ditch this one, we should just ditch it.
Plus, keep in mind that some things are rough 1:1 swaps, like date() for
localtime().
Hmmmm... the more I think about it maybe 'use Perl5' should just say
Hey! This is Perl 6! It's not Perl 5, deal. But it's cool, check the
docs.
(Only half-kidding...)
-Nate
