> This one here's been bugging me for a bit. Larry never said that perl 6
> would assume its input code was perl 5. Perl 6 will always assume its input
> is perl 6. The said (and I'm still trying to dig up the quote) is that
> we'll be enabling warnings and strict by default (as opposed to the off by
> default now) if and only if perl can tell it's parsing code for a module.
> (Via the "module" keyword)
Actually, the quote in "Apoc1" reads:
--- That is, Perl 6 must assume it is being fed Perl 5 code until it
knows otherwise. And that implies that we must have some declaration that
unambiguously declares the code to be Perl 6.
Without throwing more hornets into the nest, I think it's worth
considering that by and large, most people using both perl6 and perl5 will
opt to differentiate right on the command-line or #!. I know I will. It
isn't *that* difficult to keep 2 local interpreters lying around. Or 3; I
still have a perl4 somewhere.
I understand why lots of people freak when considering that perl6 will be
totally different. But I don't. Simple migration is good. Legacy at the
cost of innovation is not.
