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?
