Branden wrote:
> >
> > 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.
You're focusing too narrowly on your specific proposal.
In talking about other proposals, those threads make a lot of
points which are relevant to yours. IOW, you're missing the
spirit of it.
> > "...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 ;-)
Again, you're missing the spirit of the aphorism (perhaps
intentionally). We should be very careful when considering
adding more WTDI, particularly if those WTDI are not
necessary, as in this case.
> Once more, I don't ask you to use it or like it.
That's the umpteenth time you've said that, but you seem
to be trying to counter something I never said.
I'm arguing against your proposal because I think it's a
bad idea and is bad for perl. I assure you if it goes in,
I will not use it. You don't need to worry about that.
--
John Porter
Ann wenno haddum billizac...
