MonkeeSage wrote:
> Ant wrote:
> > Don't think so, I followed the thread along a little, and it seems to
> > be correct. In addition, they seem to have the ¥ character as the Perl
> > 6 equivalent of zip(). Those crazy guys.
>
> Yup, I don't think it was a joke either; there are several other
> "h
Ant wrote:
> Don't think so, I followed the thread along a little, and it seems to
> be correct. In addition, they seem to have the ¥ character as the Perl
> 6 equivalent of zip(). Those crazy guys.
Yup, I don't think it was a joke either; there are several other
"hyper" operators already in pugs:
Ant wrote:
> Don't think so, I followed the thread along a little, and it seems to
> be correct. In addition, they seem to have the ¥ character as the Perl
> 6 equivalent of zip(). Those crazy guys.
Yup, I don't think it was a joke either; there are several other
"hyper" operators already in pugs:
Mirco Wahab wrote:
> Thus spoke A.M. Kuchling (on 2006-09-30 19:26):
> > On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:10:14 +0100,
> > Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thats it. What is the fuzz all about? I consider 'hyper fatarrow'
> (you did't the »=>« get right) just a joke of LW
> (he does so sometimes ;
Thus spoke A.M. Kuchling (on 2006-09-30 19:26):
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:10:14 +0100,
> Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My God, Perl 6 is going to be even less comprehensible that Perl 5,
>> which was at least usable. Is »=>« really a Perl6 operator? That's too
>> funny!
>
> While we
Steve Holden wrote:
> Istvan Albert wrote:
> [...]
> > ps. as for the title of this post, it is ironic that you are insulting
> > another community while asking for no insults
> >
> Perhaps so, but none the less comp.lang.perl has a demonstrable history
> of newbie-flaming. Don't know what it's li
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:10:14 +0100,
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My God, Perl 6 is going to be even less comprehensible that Perl 5,
> which was at least usable. Is »=>« really a Perl6 operator? That's too
> funny!
While we poor Python people have to cope with writing:
MonkeeSage wrote:
> Steve Holden wrote:
>
>>Perhaps so, but none the less comp.lang.perl has a demonstrable history
>>of newbie-flaming. Don't know what it's like now, as it's years since I
>>read that group, but they used to just love the smell of crisply-toasted
>>newbie in the morning ;-)
>
>
Steve Holden wrote:
> Perhaps so, but none the less comp.lang.perl has a demonstrable history
> of newbie-flaming. Don't know what it's like now, as it's years since I
> read that group, but they used to just love the smell of crisply-toasted
> newbie in the morning ;-)
C'mon! No reason why a newb
Istvan Albert wrote:
[...]
> ps. as for the title of this post, it is ironic that you are insulting
> another community while asking for no insults
>
Perhaps so, but none the less comp.lang.perl has a demonstrable history
of newbie-flaming. Don't know what it's like now, as it's years since I
re
10 matches
Mail list logo
