At 09:56 AM 4/10/2001 +1000, Greg Boug wrote:
> > >*knock knock* Hello? Abstraction? Are you there????
> > Don't forget that human language expresses concrete things as
> > much or more than it does abstract things. Perl is at least
> > partially a human language.
>
>True... But the ability to say "This is a $something" is
>an abstraction. You are putting together all the things that
>make $something and calling it $something, thus hiding its
>makeup.
We already do that with magic open. Perl has a fair amount of magic in
it--when that magic is reasonably straightforward I don't see that there's
a problem.
> > Abstraction is nice, but it's abstraction made concrete that does
> > the heavy lifting. An abstract bicycle isn't going to get a real
> > problem very far...
>
>I agree... I'd prefer the concept of libraries to remain for
>things like tcp/ip connections and the like. It allows flexibility
>and extendability.
>
>Looking at your open command earlier... Lets say a new protocol
>comes out "tomorrow" and takes the world by storm. Lets call it
>the fbtp (fscking brilliant transfer protocol)... Your method
>would require re-releasing Perl to incorperate this new protocol,
>given its wide acceptance.
Really? I think you're presuming too much. Being able to replace pieces of
perl as time goes on without a fullscale rebuild's one of the things we're
going to be doing with perl 6.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
