>From the recent P6 Summary:
> Larry's response is a masterpiece of conciseness:
>
> Well, actually, we saved you last summer when we decided to make +
> mean that the parameter must be named.
Larry's response also didn't really address the issue, since parameters
marked with a + in t
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:16:00PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
: ...but I'm not sure if this is just one of Damian's Crazy Ideas(tm)
: or if it'll actually end up as a standard part of the Perl 6 language.
I've never considered the two to be mutually exclusive. :-)
Larry
They're exclusive by definition.
Were it to become part of the language, it would be "one of Damian's
Brilliant Ideas".
=Austin
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 April, 2004 03:01 PM
> To: Perl 6 Language
> Subject: Re: Required Name
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:18:14PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
: They're exclusive by definition.
I don't think so. Merely disjunctional.
: Were it to become part of the language, it would be "one of Damian's
: Brilliant Ideas".
"Crazy" and "Brilliant" are not mutually exclusive either. Ther
Remember, the non-controversial decisions in A12 and the other
Apocalypses, Exegeses, and Synopses are prime fodder to add to the P6
Stories wiki at http://p6stories.kwiki.org/.
Good stories and, even better, small test cases with code and expected
output make the Perl 6 compiler suite *much* easi
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 2004-04-25
And we're back on a weekly schedule again (unless the Mayday bank
holiday knocks me for six next week). As I expected, the Apocalypse has
brought out a rash of prophets and prognosticators in perl6-language,
but perl6-internals is
