Brent wrote:
> # And I'll be porting most of my 30 or so (not the Perl6::
> # ones, obviously).
>
> Why bother? You've already put P::RD and T::B effectively in the core!
Not to mention Switch and Attribute::Handlers and Class::Contract and
Class::Multimethods and Filter::Simple and Inline::Fi
On 6/4/02 4:08 PM, "Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> Why bother? You've already put P::RD and T::B effectively in the core!
> ;^)
And Switch. And Next? And Q::S? Larry, have you decided on that one yet?
:-)
Regards,
David
--
David Wheeler AIM:
Damian Conway:
# Schwern wrote:
#
# > For what it's worth, I'm looking forward to porting my
# 50-odd modules
# > to Perl 6. In a lot of cases, I'll finally be able to remove some
# > awful hacks.
#
# And I'll be porting most of my 30 or so (not the Perl6::
# ones, obviously).
#
# There. N
Schwern wrote:
> For what it's worth, I'm looking forward to porting my 50-odd modules to
> Perl 6. In a lot of cases, I'll finally be able to remove some awful hacks.
And I'll be porting most of my 30 or so (not the Perl6:: ones, obviously).
There. Nearly 3% of the CPAN ported in two fell swo
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 03:53:18PM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> One word: CPAN.
For what it's worth, I'm looking forward to porting my 50-odd modules to
Perl 6. In a lot of cases, I'll finally be able to remove some awful hacks.
--
This sig file temporarily out of order.
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 10:06:44 -0700 (PDT) Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's really not that difficult to run two interpreters in the
>same process. I already made Perl and Java run together nicely.
Agree.
>Scaffolding is supposed to be ugly. You wouldn't believe how ugly
>the transiti
At 5:40 PM +0100 6/4/02, Simon Cozens wrote:
>Steve Simmons:
>> We have said that perl5 will be *mostly* mechanically translatable into
>> perl6.
>
>And we shall keep saying this until we believe that it is true?
Coming from the man who wrote part of a Python->Perl converter?
>Hubris is when y
Larry Wall:
> That's exactly what I've been arguing for all along. Grr
Thank you. Now I'm somewhat less concerned. And that makes the implementation
much easier. It was just when people were saying that the parser needed to
be sufficiently flexible to parse both languages that I got the heeb
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> Having said that, I have real, real doubts that Perl 6 will ever be able
> to execute Perl 5 code natively. Its not just a case a writing a new
> parser and some P5-specific ops; P5 has so many special features, boundary
> conditions and pecularies, that
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Steve Simmons:
> > We have said that perl5 will be *mostly* mechanically translatable into
> > perl6.
>
> And we shall keep saying this until we believe that it is true?
As a Perl user (the kind of guy who uses Perl at work for everything
humanly possibl
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
: Steve Simmons:
: > We have said that perl5 will be *mostly* mechanically translatable into
: > perl6.
:
: And we shall keep saying this until we believe that it is true?
No, we'll keep saying this until we make it true. Faith without
works is dead.
La
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 05:40:08PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Steve Simmons:
> > We have said that perl5 will be *mostly* mechanically translatable into
> > perl6.
> And we shall keep saying this until we believe that it is true?
*grin*
My apologies for using the wrong name, Simon. Doh!
--
Steve Simmons:
> We have said that perl5 will be *mostly* mechanically translatable into
> perl6.
And we shall keep saying this until we believe that it is true?
--
Hubris is when you really do have it, enough so only the gods slap you
down. Pretentiousness is when you don't have it, and everyo
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
: Dave Mitchell:
: > > (Please CC me on replies)
:
: Actually, now I come to think of it, please don't CC on replies. One thing I
: really hated about Perl 6 was the number of people sniping from the sidelines
: providing no useful contribution. And now I'
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 04:13:36PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
Hmm, June 4. Independence day, with an off by 1 error. Must be a C
program involved somewhere. :-)
In brief, I'm with Damien on this one. IMHO C++ is an ugly bastard of
a programming language because they cut the cord ineffective
On 6/4/02 8:13 AM, "Simon Cozens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> Yes, there's a lot of legacy crap out there. Much of the important parts of it
> are XS, which we can't hope to support. (No, Dan, be realistic) So, let's go
> through the CPAN argument:
Personally, I'm still really jazzed about
Simon Cozens:
# I'm becoming somewhat disillusioned with Perl 6 these days;
# sometimes because it's too radical, more often than not
# because it's not radical enough, and quite often because it's
# more than a year behind schedule and still slipping. But that
# last point is by the by; with
Dave Mitchell:
> > (Please CC me on replies)
Actually, now I come to think of it, please don't CC on replies. One thing I
really hated about Perl 6 was the number of people sniping from the sidelines
providing no useful contribution. And now I've become one. Urgh.
> One word: CPAN.
I understand
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 10:43:02AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> (Please CC me on replies)
>
> I don't often express many opinions on Perl 6 these days, but I feel I have to
> warn people about what I see as a potential loss of direction.
>
> I'm becoming somewhat disillusioned with Perl 6 these
19 matches
Mail list logo