On Monday 30 July 2001 17:09, Me wrote:
> > 2. Format (quick to read, quick to write docs that link together;
> > 2 paragraph intro that becomes a daily tip)
>
> Are thinking of making a wiki a key part of the overall picture?
If ya do, make it understand POD and not the normal wikiyikky markup g
> > What is Camel4 going to look like for perl 6? What is going to
> be required
> > knowledge for perl6. Let's just start by looking at Apoc2. To
> use perl,
> > you'll have to know Unicode, you'll have to know OO, you'll have to
> > understand references. Those are three very technical conce
16 May 2001, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
> > Dave Storrs writes:
> > > < SARCASM=EXTREME>
> >
> > Everyone, please try to stop the downhill descent of the conversation.
> > This is not just Dave, but others in the thread too.
>
> For the rec
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Grove wrote:
>
> > For me, it's the bare minimum amount of Perl you must *use* to
> be productive
> > that I see increasing in our plans and discussions. I'm afraid of Perl
> > turning into a verbose monstrosity to please verbo
> It's not so much that Perl shouldn't have data structures or modules.
> I think what Stephen is saying (and he's not the only one) is that
> the bare minimum amount of Perl you *must* know to be productive
> is increasing. Either that, or we're giving the impression that
> it's increasing. Man
> -Original Message-
> From: Nathan Torkington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 10:20 AM
> To: Chaim Frenkel
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: perl5 to perl6
>
>
> Chaim Frenkel writes:
> > Those are all major typo inducing changes.
> >
> > You'll need alternat
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:00:13PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > We need to keep syntactic compatibility, which means we need
> to keep the
> > > ability for perl6 to USE PERL5.
> >
> > I think you're in violent agreemen
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 03:58:41PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
> > it's been 13 months since 5.6 was released,
> > and two commercial entities have so far accepted it:
> ActiveState and SuSE.
>
> "a complete, barefaced lie".
To be a lie, it must be pu
> Perl 5 is far from stagnant--please don't bend the truth to fit your
> points. My impression is that there's quite a bit more constructive
> activity on p5p than there was a year ago.
I've stopped paying attention to P5P except for keeping an eye on the
possibility of a new surprise upgrade fr
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael G Schwern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 3:07 PM
> To: Larry Wall
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Perl, the new generation
>
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:55:36AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> > If you talk that way, peop
> Nathan Wiger writes:
> : Maybe the name "Perl" should be dropped altogether?
>
> No. The Schemers had to do a name change because the Lisp name had
> pretty much already been ruined by divergence.
>
> : (Granted, that's not what I'd prefer, but the changes are getting
> : rather massive and ar
Incompatible continuity. Sounds like Microsoft marketing.
"We're strongly considering keeping compatibility, and rejecting it wherever
we can insert something that looks momentarily cool. Of course your Perl 5
programs will still work, as long as you convert them to Perl 6. We'll have
a parser th
I've been wondering for quite some time whether we were creating a Perl for
the purpose of cleaning up the ridiculously rigged Perl 5 internals, or
creating a Perl for the simple enjoyment of creating a new programming
language. Certainly, recent discussions would point to the latter; as we
move f
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:00:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > So I ask you - *why* make an artificial deadline? What's the point?
>
> Do you currently believe we're all sufficiently focused on getting the
> job done? I ask merely for informati
"John van V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I actually have a good name...
>
> shakedown (as in cruise, matches CPANTS)
I thought cruise got famous because you couldn't CPANTS.
> Personally I would want to pull away from reliance on any corporation
(ask
> Dave Grove why)
Please don't.
"H.Merijn Brand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > > As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name.
> >
> > Likewise. What's wrong w
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:01:25PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > > > As an active non-sm
>
http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?t
> ag=ltnc
I wish I could think of something commensurate to say. I don't think I've
ever seen this much cockamamey horseradish on a single sheet of
cyberpaper. The most absurd part of it is that the bastages actually
Kirrily Skud Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:28:31AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> >
> > Anyways, that's just one suggestion. Do I have any idea where to find
> > these mythical people? No, unfortunately. Perhaps some feelers on
> > newsgroups might be a good p
> >Open Source Writers Group (http://oswg.org/) is a good starting point.
> >I'm subscribed to their mailing list. I can think of a couple of
other
> >good places to try, too, but they're a bit politically incorrect to
> >mention in this context :-/
>
> Who on earth would be considered poli
> > will have to do some proofreading (also tedious) no matter what. If
the
>
> Bah. *I* like proofreading. Certainly for typos and English
construction
> if I can forget everything other than the last 2 sentences I read.
Masters have no reason to spellcheck. I mean they'll have to proofread
> B. The "master" / "apprentice" relationship is just that - it depends
>how the people in question relate. As a potential "master" I am all
>too aware that I am not skilled in teaching - usually because I
don't
>know what is obvious vs what is obscure - so anyone "taught" by me
>
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Fink wrote:
> >
> > David Grove wrote:
> >
> Anyways, that's just one suggestion. Do I have any idea where to find
> these mythical people? No, unfortunately. Perhaps some feelers on
> newsgroups
Kirrily Skud Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:05:43AM -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
> > David Grove wrote:
> >
> > > Also, as far as documentation goes, I think it _should_ be written
by
> > > apprentices, so that non-maste
. Tweten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today around 11:06am, David Grove hammered out this masterpiece:
>
> : Does brainbench still have free tests for Perl? Maybe that's
> : something to look into, and maybe since it's a purely volunteer
> : effort if they are now c
"Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 1969, David Grove wrote:
> > In order to serve and assist future "apprentices" or maintainers, the
> > communication between the two should be public (unless private on
> > pur
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 10:08:35PM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> > Be available. Don't give a task, then disappear until its due,
accept
> it,
> > then disappear again. Answer questions. Check the work. Give
feedback.
>
> This is very
> I am slightly worried about the "career path" dead-ending at personal
> lackey,
> however. But, hey, that's why we're getting paid the big bucks, right?
I do have some concerns, but before I express them, I have a sidetrack
comment in this direction.
I have been programming in Perl since befo
There is here (me).
Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've tried to snip as much as possible without fouling up
> attributions. If I failed, my apologies.
>
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >At 11:47 AM 11-30-2000 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> [...is there a pla
"Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 11:54:31AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > > I categorically do *NOT* want perl6-internals to turn into a basic
> course in
> > > compiler design, purely for the benefit of tho
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 11:54:31AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > I categorically do *NOT* want perl6-internals to turn into a basic
> course in
> > compiler design, purely for the benefit of those who know nothing at
all
> about
> > what they're t
I would, certainly. But I also think that the group as a whole would enjoy
the preview.
Kirrily "Skud" Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This coming Saturday, I'm presenting a paper on Perl 6 (the story so
> far) at the Australian Open Source Symposium.
>
> Is anyone interested in looking
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:19 AM 11/17/00 -0800, Ken Fox wrote:
> >However, I don't want to see early (premature) adoption of fundamental
> >pieces like the VM or parser. It makes sense to me to explore many
> possible
> >designs and pick and choose between them. Also,
Nat and I argued parts of this (I think this is included) at some length.
Actually, I think I drove him crazy getting specifics out of this.
Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:59:40PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > 6) Only a WG chair, pumpking, or one of the pr
Interesting. I didn't get the announcement from there.
Out of curiosity, is majordomo deprecated?
---
I've been unable to carrry out your request: The address
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
was already on the perl6-announce mailing list when I received
your request, and remains a subscriber.
I'm on announce, I believe... I didn't get anything. (Internals seems like
a poor place to make than announcement.) How do I check to see that ezmlm
hasn't unsubscribed me from announce when my server was down last week for
a couple of days? It's read-only, so I can't test-post to it, and I'm not
Sorry for the crosspost (the information was requested). This is where I
got the information on the new api groups. I've subscribed to the groups
but haven't seen any traffic on them yet. I don't see any reason to
believe that this wouldn't be authentic, but if it is, then if I'm not
missing some
Ok, so I'm not off in la-la land. See you in parser. I have a couple
things you might like...
Thanks, Dan
pete
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:17 AM 11/14/00 +0000, David Grove wrote:
> >Dan & al.,
> >
> >I'm very surprised to se
Dan & al.,
I'm very surprised to see planning groups for api and parsing for perl6
springing up, with goals of providing RFC's in nine days. This is rather
confusing given that Larry hasn't yet (that I'm aware of) determined what
Perl6 will even look like, what, if any, new keywords will be there
The polite thing to do would be to catch up on the end of a dead thread
before using a several-day-old posting as a springboard to ask people to
let it go. Please catch yourself in this error in the future.
> This thread has gone on for a long time, and is starting to repeat
> itself...cou
> Anyone think others are needed?
"Myopia neither equates the absence of existence of a distant object, nor
demonstrates the insanity of the non-myopic."
or, roughly translated, "Issues should be faced rather than avoided by
attacking the person who points them out."
's position.
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 02:01:45PM +, David Grove wrote:
> > Absolutely and double the vulgarity. I can't imagine that the article
was
> > posted at all. Several of us (you guys) have _some_ pull at
O'
John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bennett Todd wrote:
> >
> > Java is crappy engineering with superb marketing,
>
> This is so wide of reality, I conclude that you don't know the
> first thing about Java.
Ok, Visual Basic then.
Absolutely and double the vulgarity. I can't imagine that the article was
posted at all. Several of us (you guys) have _some_ pull at O'Reilly...
please suggest that the article be pulled. For the company that backs perl
the most to publish something so disgustingly myopic is unconscionable.
Nat
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:42:08AM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > But what really pisses me off is that the harshest critics are people
> > who bowed out or were silent during the stage where we were setting
up
> > the RFC process.
>
> I'm try
If there's one thing that I know about Larry, it's that he's not stupid.
Neither are the members of the perl community as silly and uninitiated as
the "perl-elite" would make them out to be. I can see _much_ more
information coming out of these RFC's than just the content of the RFC's
in a techica
Ah, sorry, misunderstood. I do remember him saying it will probably be done in
C with perl as the parser, with C++ dubious.
I just got caught up in the C# research.
On Thursday, October 19, 2000 12:10 AM, Dan Sugalski [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> At 10:30 PM 10/18/00 -0500, David Gr
On Wednesday, October 18, 2000 12:59 PM, Larry Wall [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> Simon Cozens writes:
> : You're learning Japanese, right? It's gotta be "toriaezu".[1] :)
>
> Yes, but if we go down that route, we're gonna end up with all the
> verbs at the end. Instead of "print @foo", we g
Isn't C# (C Sharp) a Microsoft-owned language that is (currently) available
only on Win2k (though apparently targeted for crossplatform)? After Larry said
he was thinking of making parts of Perl 6 in C#, I went on a studying rampage.
I find nothing for anything except Win2k. Can someone provide
On Wednesday, October 11, 2000 3:45 PM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
[snip[
> documentation, etc. The teams will obviously work together at time.
> Each team has three roles identified: the person who checks in
> patches, the person who represents user interest in that are
On Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:34 PM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> David Grove writes:
> > I'm not sure that unanymity wouldn't be going overboard for Perl,
>
> Except that it's not unanimity of individuals, who are cantankerous
> and tr
On Wednesday, October 11, 2000 11:02 AM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> David Grove writes:
> > I'm wondering how different this is from the current setup.
>
> Currently there's the pumpking and the pumpking decides when to
> release a new versio
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 8:03 PM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> I think we're talking about two different periods of development here.
>
> The immediate question facing us is how to structure software design.
> This is different from the ongoing maintenance of Perl.
>
>
hen I expect the Perl community (at the
> > very least, one David Grove :-) to be up in arms about it.
>
> And then they could fork, and Perl would stay free. Crisis over.
>
> IT'S OPEN SOURCE.
>
> David, go understand what that means.
Simon, it's corporate co
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:27 PM, Simon Cozens [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> Consider:
> "Public Opinion": Hey, we need Perl 6 stable in three weeks.
> Coders: But, uhm, we haven't started coding yet.
Consider:
Microsoft: We need Perl by April 15th
Head Cheese: Ok, sure
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:33 PM, Jonathan Scott Duff
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> David Grove wrote:
> > Read-only and carefully censored lists are irrelevant to the goals of
> > Perl 6's giving voice to the perl community. They lead us right back
> > where w
ne who sees
the danger. Relatively few people speak openly about it for fear of getting the
same beatings I get on a regular basis. Frankly I think it's important for
these guys just to realize that other people are sitting back and watching,
with unexpressed interests.
> On Tue, 10 Oct
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:51 AM, Dan Sugalski [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> >Yep, this is my only concern. It should be reasonably easy to say "I
> >really want to help" and get on the closed lists. Perhaps the best way
> >of making sure the lists don't bloat into "everyone has an opinio
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 12:59 PM, Peter Buckingham
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> David Grove wrote:
> > Read-only and carefully censored lists are irrelevant to the goals of
> > Perl 6's giving voice to the perl community. They lead us right back
> > where w
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:31 AM, John Barnette
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> D'you think it's a possibility to provide read-only access to the lists
> for interested parties?
Read-only and carefully censored lists are irrelevant to the goals of Perl 6's
giving voice to the perl commun
On Monday, October 09, 2000 9:39 PM, J. David Blackstone [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> Let me make the following proposal: let's test your idea on itself.
> Require n nominations/seconds/whatever to bring your idea to a vote (n
> should be determined by you and Nat Torkington). If it does
On Monday, October 09, 2000 7:12 PM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> David Grove writes:
> > There has to be some kind of middle ground we can find, no?
>
> Nobody's suggesting complete quiet.
>
> What we're seeing is the fundamental conflict o
On Monday, October 09, 2000 3:22 PM, Stephen Zander [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> The lack of difference between perl and Perl has been the greatest
> cause of unease, disquiet and the disenfranchisement of parts of the
> Perl community because it's impossible to talk about one without
> invo
On Monday, October 09, 2000 12:22 PM, Simon Cozens [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:09:08AM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> > I realize that's hard to do, and "core" developers get swamped, but
> > without a public voice
>
>P
On Monday, October 09, 2000 1:17 AM, Dan Sugalski [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> At 04:13 PM 10/8/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> >I've heard people asking for RFCs to continue after the brainstorming.
> >What do we want to do that we need RFCs for? Design? Implementation?
> >Working out
On Wednesday, October 04, 2000 4:19 PM, Nathan Wiger [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> Adam Turoff wrote:
> >
> > RFC Improvement #1: All updated RFCs must contain a CHANGES section.
> >
> > RFC Improvement #2: All updated RFCs must contain a synopsis of
> > relevant discus
On Sunday, October 01, 2000 8:51 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Stephen Zander wrote:
> > >>>>> "David" == David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > David> This country (apologies to non-US citizens) was not founded
>
> It's possible you're speaking of one or more of the working group chairs,
> in which case your criticism may well be valid. This, though, is one of the
> cases where you may need to cope (as a volunteer project one needs to work
> with what's available). You can also speak to folks a step or two
> No conspiracy could be that well-oiled. Someone would have leaked it
> by now.
The community has been leaking like a sieve since July 1998. Want a complete
list?
69 matches
Mail list logo
