-Original Message-
From: Nathan Torkington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 10:20 AM
To: Chaim Frenkel
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: perl5 to perl6
Chaim Frenkel writes:
Those are all major typo inducing changes.
You'll need alternative micro-code
I've been wondering for quite some time whether we were creating a Perl for
the purpose of cleaning up the ridiculously rigged Perl 5 internals, or
creating a Perl for the simple enjoyment of creating a new programming
language. Certainly, recent discussions would point to the latter; as we
move
Incompatible continuity. Sounds like Microsoft marketing.
We're strongly considering keeping compatibility, and rejecting it wherever
we can insert something that looks momentarily cool. Of course your Perl 5
programs will still work, as long as you convert them to Perl 6. We'll have
a parser
Perl 5 is far from stagnant--please don't bend the truth to fit your
points. My impression is that there's quite a bit more constructive
activity on p5p than there was a year ago.
I've stopped paying attention to P5P except for keeping an eye on the
possibility of a new surprise upgrade from
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 03:58:41PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
it's been 13 months since 5.6 was released,
and two commercial entities have so far accepted it:
ActiveState and SuSE.
a complete, barefaced lie.
To be a lie, it must be purposeful. I am not above error, however.
Who do you
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:00:13PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
We need to keep syntactic compatibility, which means we need
to keep the
ability for perl6 to USE PERL5.
I think you're in violent agreement here. This
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:00:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
So I ask you - *why* make an artificial deadline? What's the point?
Do you currently believe we're all sufficiently focused on getting the
job done? I ask merely for information.
"H.Merijn Brand" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name.
Likewise. What's wrong with builders?
Kirrily Skud Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:28:31AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Anyways, that's just one suggestion. Do I have any idea where to find
these mythical people? No, unfortunately. Perhaps some feelers on
newsgroups might be a good place to
Nathan Wiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Fink wrote:
David Grove wrote:
Anyways, that's just one suggestion. Do I have any idea where to find
these mythical people? No, unfortunately. Perhaps some feelers on
newsgroups might be a good place to start. Personal experience
B. The "master" / "apprentice" relationship is just that - it depends
how the people in question relate. As a potential "master" I am all
too aware that I am not skilled in teaching - usually because I
don't
know what is obvious vs what is obscure - so anyone "taught" by me
Kirrily Skud Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:05:43AM -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
David Grove wrote:
Also, as far as documentation goes, I think it _should_ be written
by
apprentices, so that non-masters can understand it too. That's
always
been
There is here (me).
Dave Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've tried to snip as much as possible without fouling up
attributions. If I failed, my apologies.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:47 AM 11-30-2000 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
[...is there a place where
I'm on announce, I believe... I didn't get anything. (Internals seems like
a poor place to make than announcement.) How do I check to see that ezmlm
hasn't unsubscribed me from announce when my server was down last week for
a couple of days? It's read-only, so I can't test-post to it, and I'm not
Interesting. I didn't get the announcement from there.
Out of curiosity, is majordomo deprecated?
---
I've been unable to carrry out your request: The address
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
was already on the perl6-announce mailing list when I received
your request, and remains a subscriber.
Anyone think others are needed?
"Myopia neither equates the absence of existence of a distant object, nor
demonstrates the insanity of the non-myopic."
or, roughly translated, "Issues should be faced rather than avoided by
attacking the person who points them out."
If there's one thing that I know about Larry, it's that he's not stupid.
Neither are the members of the perl community as silly and uninitiated as
the "perl-elite" would make them out to be. I can see _much_ more
information coming out of these RFC's than just the content of the RFC's
in a
Absolutely and double the vulgarity. I can't imagine that the article was
posted at all. Several of us (you guys) have _some_ pull at O'Reilly...
please suggest that the article be pulled. For the company that backs perl
the most to publish something so disgustingly myopic is unconscionable.
John Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bennett Todd wrote:
Java is crappy engineering with superb marketing,
This is so wide of reality, I conclude that you don't know the
first thing about Java.
Ok, Visual Basic then.
Isn't C# (C Sharp) a Microsoft-owned language that is (currently) available
only on Win2k (though apparently targeted for crossplatform)? After Larry said
he was thinking of making parts of Perl 6 in C#, I went on a studying rampage.
I find nothing for anything except Win2k. Can someone
On Wednesday, October 18, 2000 12:59 PM, Larry Wall [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
Simon Cozens writes:
: You're learning Japanese, right? It's gotta be "toriaezu".[1] :)
Yes, but if we go down that route, we're gonna end up with all the
verbs at the end. Instead of "print @foo", we get
On Wednesday, October 11, 2000 11:02 AM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
David Grove writes:
I'm wondering how different this is from the current setup.
Currently there's the pumpking and the pumpking decides when to
release a new version of Perl. This exposes
On Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:34 PM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
David Grove writes:
I'm not sure that unanymity wouldn't be going overboard for Perl,
Except that it's not unanimity of individuals, who are cantankerous
and troublesome, but unanimity of teams. Each
On Wednesday, October 11, 2000 3:45 PM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
[snip[
documentation, etc. The teams will obviously work together at time.
Each team has three roles identified: the person who checks in
patches, the person who represents user interest in that area,
the danger. Relatively few people speak openly about it for fear of getting the
same beatings I get on a regular basis. Frankly I think it's important for
these guys just to realize that other people are sitting back and watching,
with unexpressed interests.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, David Grove wrote
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:33 PM, Jonathan Scott Duff
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
David Grove wrote:
Read-only and carefully censored lists are irrelevant to the goals of
Perl 6's giving voice to the perl community. They lead us right back
where we were before, with a core group
On Wednesday, October 04, 2000 4:19 PM, Nathan Wiger [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
Adam Turoff wrote:
RFC Improvement #1: All updated RFCs must contain a CHANGES section.
RFC Improvement #2: All updated RFCs must contain a synopsis of
relevant discussion,
It's possible you're speaking of one or more of the working group chairs,
in which case your criticism may well be valid. This, though, is one of the
cases where you may need to cope (as a volunteer project one needs to work
with what's available). You can also speak to folks a step or two up
28 matches
Mail list logo
