Re: new sigil
-Original Message- From: Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] And for anyone who says upgrade, please note that many firms in the real world are still forcing a base perl version of 5.005_03 or 5.6.1 for development. Still. My weekend project is to demonstrate that you are an optimist. Really.
Re: syntax for accessing multiple versions of a module
-Original Message- From: Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can state the compelling reason for this one -- it's way too confusing when $1, $2, $3, etc. correspond to $/[0], $/[1], $/[2], etc. In many discussions of capturing semantics earlier in the year, nearly everyone using $1, $2, $3 in examples, documentation, and discussion was having trouble with off-by-one errors. This includes the language designers, and even those who were advocating staying with $1, $2, $3. Once we switched to using $0, $1, $2, etc., nearly all of the confusion and mistakes disappeared. Okay, this I buy. There's a cost to it, but it's worth it.
Re: syntax for accessing multiple versions of a module
-Original Message- From: Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Our target audience is only somewhat from a Perl 5 background. People from Java, from Python, from C, and even just starting to program will be learning Perl 6, and they would rather have all the language be zero-based, rather than most of it being zero-based except for $1, $2, etc. Then the target audience is specifically not people coming from a shell scripting background, who are quite used to the idea that $0 is different from $1 in a way in which $1 is not different from $2. Correct?
Re: syntax for accessing multiple versions of a module
From: Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] But $1 in Perl 5 wasn't the same as $1 in a shell script. Sure--but that's not what I said. I'm all for breaking things that need breaking, which is why I keep my mouth shut most of the time--either I see the reason or I suspect (that is, take on faith, which is okay by me) there's a reason I don't see or fully understand. I'm just not seeing a compelling reason for this one, and a pretty good reason not to do it: I'm not aware offhand of any other place where $0 is used in regex matching, and several of the languages which you point out are zero-based in other places are not zero-based in regex matching.
Re: Re: TPF donations
This is a valuable discussion, and I hope people will take this up on [EMAIL PROTECTED] as well. Thanks, John A see me fulminate at http://www.jzip.org/
Re: [RFC] Perl Operator List, TAKE 6
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:13:36 -0800 Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're not supposed to use string concatenation all that often anyway... I'm not supposed (for some value of supposed) to use Perl at my job, but I do, and I suspect I use string concatenation in about one script in five, so should I vote Scylla or Charybdis? Thanks, John A see me fulminate at http://www.jzip.org/
