Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from September 2000
>I'm not ignorant of the technology. But having a method that directly >represents my thought process, and does something that I need would be >a win for me. Adding to the core infinitely more new functions in an environment with people screaming to yank stuff out, and still worse, adding new inherent *types* (or else incurring stupid costs) that are of use to only a few, is something that just will not make sense to me. If this were so important, then the existing modules that already do this would be being used all over the place. They aren't. You must account for this lack. I believe this is nearly a non-existence proof. I believe it's because hashes suffice. I have never seen a posted program actually use the set modules, let alone such prevalence of the same that a million people are crying to add some brand new set type to the very core of the language. You're going to have to work incredibly harder than you have to justify adding a new fundamental type when what we already have works perfectly fine. Yes, I do set operations. Yes, I do them in Perl. No, I do not use fufi new types to do it. I simply use the Perl we have, and it works excellently for this purpose. --tomThread Previous | Thread Next