Simon Cozens wrote: > > 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.
My understanding was that perl6 would default to Perl 6 (*not* Perl 5), unless the first thing it encountered was a: package Whatever; statement. > Eh, doesn't that mean Damian's TPJ article is misleading? If it were true, it would have. Yes. ;-) Damian