Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Piers Cawley: >> Well, no. Because Perl 6 is specified as behaving like perl 5 until >> told different. Which means that the first translation you give would >> be a syntax error. > > Ouch. Guess I need to go reread A1. Anyway, that makes it easier - > then there needs to be no translation. > > Eh, doesn't that mean Damian's TPJ article is misleading?
Well, there's still going to be a desire to 'upgrade' to perl6 capabilities for scripts that need to be maintained. You do that by sticking a C<module main> at the top and by fixing the syntax errors. Which should be easy. Then you get to refactor to more Perl6ish idioms if you want to. >> If the second one were to become perl6ish, then you'd have to replace >> $ENV{...} with %ENV{...} and $. might become $*STDIN.recordnum or >> something. > > Oops. Ah well. All the sorts of things that a convertor will likely be able to catch. -- Piers "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite." -- Jane Austen?