On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 10:44:02PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> You must not be following Perl 6 closely enough, then. Perl 6 is a
> "real" programming language now, as opposed to a "scripting" language.
Um, I've followed Perl6 closely enough to know that the distinction
between "real langauge" an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> It will still have a lot of power in text processing, and still be a
> powerful "quicky" language, but that's no longer its primary focus --
> not to say that highly structured programming is.
So, uh, what is?
> And you can still do it the Perl 5 way in P
> Apologies if I've missed some earlier discussions on multimethods. The
> apocolypses, exegesises and synopses don't seem to say much other than
> (a) they will exist and (b) wait for apocolypse 12 for more information.
>
> Looking over RFC 256[*] and Class::Multimethods[**] it sounds like the
>
Apologies if I've missed some earlier discussions on multimethods. The
apocolypses, exegesises and synopses don't seem to say much other than
(a) they will exist and (b) wait for apocolypse 12 for more information.
Looking over RFC 256[*] and Class::Multimethods[**] it sounds like the
intent is t
Just in case you were wondering.
Preparations for my imminent speaking tour:
http://damian.conway.org/tshirt.html
delayed it considerably, but I have had a draft of E6 complete for a few weeks
now.
Like the A6 it explains, it's big. So it's taken a few weeks for the design
team to check thro
