On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 03:44:21PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 11:12 AM -0800 12/16/02, Dave Storrs wrote:
> >You find R2L easier to read, I find L2R > >easier. TIMTOWDI. Perl6 should be smart enough to support both. > > Why? > > Yes, technically we can do both R2L and L2R. We can also support an > alternative Scheme/Lisp form of perl's syntax, as well as a > Forth/Postscript style. Heck, we can probably manage a prolog-style > unification style for a not-insignificant subset of perl programs. > That doesn't mean its a good idea. Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you think L2R is a bad idea, and should not be supported? Or just that it has not yet been demonstrated that this is a good idea? --Dks
