John Porter wrote:
> Branden wrote:
> >
> > Well, I checked the archives, and I found that the discussion begun in
> > http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01441.html
>
> That thread was rather tame; even so, I believe the end result,
> if one can be deduced, is that the proposal is not a good one.
>
> There was more heated discussion in the thread rooted at
> http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-language@perl.org/msg01089.html
> the discussion of RFC 16.
>
Well, actually, I read that, and it pretty much discusses making `strict'
default or not (which I believe is not), but I saw nothing against another
pragma like the one proposed in RFC 64.
I actually didn't see one thing that's a flaw in what I'm proposing. If
you're seeing one, please tell me! I know it pretty much can have flaws, but
I'm not seeing them.
OTOH, I'm not saying it's perfect. Of course not! It may have some
advantages over `strict' (it's more succint) the same way `strict' has
advantages over it (error checking, more disciplined, more possibility to
define scopes).
Again, I'm not proposing ending with `strict', neither making it a default.
It's only YAWTDI. Is there a problem with that? I know that
> "...but I hesitate to make ten ways to do it."
As there's only two, it would be three, so I think we have still seven to
find ;-)
Once more, I don't ask you to use it or like it. I just think we could allow
others to use it and like it (I would).
Thanks,
- Branden
