Sam Vilain wrote:
To me what's missing stands out like a sore thumb - that making sure a
package/class definition can express all the same primitive elements
used by the current emerged standard of modelling data sets - UML.
The design group is currently considering the entire issue of class me
On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 11:18, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> Ignorant of what? Surely we shouldn't assume that we're all
> ignorant of Perl?
Ignorant of the untold number of ways things could be done better.
Assuming the universe has an infinite number of possibilities, we have
0% of the expressive space o
"Joseph F. Ryan" wrote:
> Sorry, I hope I didn't offend you. In that last remark I was in no way
> fingering you; I was simply speaking broadly.
Nah, you didn't -- I know what you meant. I was just getting very
worried about the direction the conversation has been heading lately.
Well, that and
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
"Joseph F. Ryan" wrote:
Perhaps in the grand scheme of things; however, anyone that is
redesigning a system should not be ignorant of how the old system
worked (even in the slightest degree), in order to know of what to
keep and what to throw away.
Oy. One more ti
"Joseph F. Ryan" wrote:
> Perhaps in the grand scheme of things; however, anyone that is
> redesigning a system should not be ignorant of how the old system
> worked (even in the slightest degree), in order to know of what to
> keep and what to throw away.
Oy. One more time. My objection is this
Sam Vilain wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:10, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
I don't think any aspect
of this discussion is hinged on people being 'ignorant' of perl5
behaviors,
Oh, I do, and you've dismissed that argument out of hand. This isn't
name-calling
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:10, you wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
> > I don't think any aspect
> > of this discussion is hinged on people being 'ignorant' of perl5
> > behaviors,
> Oh, I do, and you've dismissed that argument out of hand. This isn't
> name-calling; this is a plea
Simon Cozens wrote:
This isn't name-calling; this is a plea for Perl 6 not to become a language
> designed by a committee of ignorant amateurs.
Fortunately there is absolutely no chance of that.
Perl 6 is a language being designed by exactly one person.
And he's neither ignorant, nor an amateur
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
> I don't think any aspect
> of this discussion is hinged on people being 'ignorant' of perl5
> behaviors,
Oh, I do, and you've dismissed that argument out of hand. This isn't
name-calling; this is a plea for Perl 6 not to become a language designed
by a
On Friday, January 17, 2003, at 02:17 PM, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2003-01-17 at 19:00:04, Simon Cozens wrote:
This is plainly untrue. See the "perlsub" documentation, which talks
about
"creating your own syntax" with the & prototype. You can do all this
in
Perl 5, and it
10 matches
Mail list logo
