At 04:54 PM 6/29/2001 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 09:50:55AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Besides, there are languages that do this on a per-object basis all the
> > time anyway (aren't there? I think there are) in which case it makes sense
> > to yank it into the core interpreter, as it'll be supporting more than
> just
> > perl.
>
>*buzzzz* false logic. If you can do something via a core module, it
>is supported by Perl. Or does Perl not do CGI, web stuff, databases,
>etc...?
Wrong--you may have a terrifically hard time using perl modules to provide
functions for non-perl languages that the interpreter supports. It may not
help Python, or Ruby, for example, that libnet or its equivalent are
provided as part of perl 6.
Core functionality is universal and essentially atomic functionality.
Things provided in modules won't necessarily be either.
>Anyhow, Self is the only one I can think of. ALL THE FULL-TIME SELF
>PROGRAMMERS HERE, PLEASE RAISE THEIR HANDS! ;)
So? Find all the folks that use languages that provide curried functions
full-time.
That a particular behaviour's not often used doesn't make that behaviour
bad or less than useful. It may just be an indication that either it's
poorly understood, or not implemented in a language that many people use.
(Of course it may be an indication that the feature's lame, but not one I'd
use as a primary)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
