I'm not sure what you mean by lexiconical. I can't find any references to it in the official perl documentation (which would technically be lexicanonical, right?).
But if you're talking about lexical scope, then yeah, Perl 6 enforces that even more than Perl 5 does by default. On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:50 PM, ToddAndMargo <toddandma...@zoho.com> wrote: > On 03/13/2017 10:20 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: > >> Just to be a little more clear about what is happening here: >> >> Perl 5 tended to treat things as strings if you use them as strings, or >> as numbers if you use them as numbers. Perl 6 is more strict about that, >> but makes an exception for specifically numbers and strings; if you have >> noticed the class "Cool", that's a class whose subclasses are string and >> number classes, and which tries to make one into the other if needed. >> >> Subs aren't Cool. [ :) ] They are objects of type Sub, which is *not* a >> String (nor has a Stringy role, nor is a subclass of Cool). Perl 6 wants >> you to explicitly make a string in this case; and as there are multiple >> strings one could want (the name? a summary of the definition like .gist >> makes? the full definition like .perl is intended to make but IIRC >> doesn't yet? something else?) you need to specify exactly *what* string >> to get from a Sub object. >> > > Hi Brandon > Makes sense. Thank you for the tutorial! > > So Perl 6 is less "Lexiconical" that Perl 5? > > :-) > > I know, I am going to the bad hell. > > When I was learning Perl 5, the term "Lexiconical" drove > me nuts. "JUST SAY WHAT YOU MEAN!!!!" "Lexiconical" > meant noting to me for the longest time. And every time > I looked it up, I understood it for about 20 seconds, > then lost it again. > > Perl 6 is so much better done than Perl 5. I am a Top Down > guy (you will notice a lot fo subs in my postings) and > Perl 6's sub's are a match made in heaven. I adore > Perl 6's subs. > > I came from Modula 2. "Lexiconical" is a dirty word > over there. Everything is literal. > > -T >
