On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
Perl 6 perlplexities
Michele Dondi worries that the increase in complexity of some aspects of
Perl 6 is much bigger than the increase in functionality that the
complexity buys us. In particular Michele is concerned that the Perl 6
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
Slightly tangentially to this, Dan Sugalski blogged a couple of weeks
ago about his successes and failures with Parrot. The comments are worth
reading -- there's a fair few more or less well founded complaints about
the way the Perl 6
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, [iso-8859-2] BÁRTHÁZI András wrote:
Where should I ask, that what's PGE means? Yes, I know, it's Parrot Grammar
Engine, and I know what it is, but a beginnner maybe not. And I think that
Which makes me think that first or later it may be worth to start a FAQ
for questions
On Tue, 24 May 2005, Herbert Snorrason wrote:
Icelandic: laukur (Incidentally, none of you will ever guess how to
correctly pronounce that.)
Incidentally, would 'laukurdottir' be a proper Icelandic offence? :-)
Michele
--
Me too. If it's any comfort, just think of the design of Perl 6 as
a
On Tue, 24 May 2005, wolverian wrote:
Portuguese: cebola
Finnish: sipoli
Italian: cipolla (since nobody has mentioned it yet)
Michele
--
It was part of the dissatisfaction thing. I never claimed I was a
nice person.
- David Kastrup in comp.text.tex, "Re: verbatiminput double spacing"
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
Perl 6 Summary for 2004-04-26 through 2005-05-03
^^
^^
Wow!
Michele
--
Why should I read the fucking manual? I know how to fuck!
In fact the problem is that the fucking manual only gives you
theoretica
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
Python on Parrot
^^
Kevin Tew wondered what the state of pyrate was. Sam Ruby provided a
general explanation.
(I'm not on all of the lists, so this may have come out before and I j
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
pipe dreams
Juerd wondered if he could mix = and ==> in a sane way. The answer
appears to be no. Once you bring in ==> you should stick with it.
Huh?!? It doesn't seem to me that the answer is 'no'. In fact C<< ==> >>
is supposed to be yet another ope
