Dave Storrs wrote:
> being backwards compatible is unlikely to
> _cost_ us adherents and might well gain us some.
Yes, all other things being equal. But will they be?
IOW: at what cost backwards compatibility?
--
John Porter
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, John Porter wrote:
> Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > the more compatible
> > with Perl5 Perl6 is, the more likely it is to be accepted.
>
> I don't believe that's necessarily true.
> If Perl6 proves to be a significantly better Perl than Perl5,
> people will adopt it, especially if
OK, there's probably somthing simple I'm missing here, but...
1. C or C (and, in general, C>) import the
definitions of the language as it existed at that time (more or less), or
die if they can't. (Or run through p52p6, or whatever.)
Advantage: matches existing precedent. The real
At 02:43 PM 4/5/2001 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>Yep, something like this would be cool. But as Dan suggested we'll
>probably have to let Larry clarify his intent here.
Somewhere or other Larry talked about this. Might've been in LA1, might've
been somewhere else.
>I read it as "it
>would be co
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> the more compatible
> with Perl5 Perl6 is, the more likely it is to be accepted.
I don't believe that's necessarily true.
If Perl6 proves to be a significantly better Perl than Perl5,
people will adopt it, especially if they're inclined toward
the Perl philosophy anyway. (An
Ted Ashton wrote:
>
> Thus it was written in the epistle of Michael G Schwern,
> > I think [Nate]'s saying that its annoying to have to write any tag
> > that says "Hey, I'm starting a new Perl 6 program here!" at the top of
> > every single program, much in the same way its tiresome to write "in
