Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from May 2001
* Larry Wall <larry@wall.org> [05/08/2001 10:11]: > > Nathan Wiger writes: > : First off, before I forget to mention it, nice job on Apoc2 Larry! You are > : the man. I know alot of us on p6l can seem like harsh critics at times, but > : it's only because we love Perl so much. ;-) > > We'll have to do something about that. :-) Yes, please, it's taking up my life writing so much of it! ;-) [stuff that sounds great deleted] > : Also, I like the *@b prototype slurping idea a lot, but I do worry about > : potential confusion with the @*b special class notation. I'm wondering if > : the latter can't be @::b? > > I wanted to keep true globals out of Main (presuming for the sake of > argument that the bare :: still indicates the user's main package). I guess that's what I was getting at: do we want :: to mean "main"? Is this more useful that meaning "CORE"? The vast majority of the time I've seen bare :: used I've seen stuff like this: @::ARGV = @something; unshift @::INC, '/my/lib'; If these are all going to be in CORE (personally, I'd much prefer a different namespace than main), then it seems like a better use of :: would be meaning CORE. It would actually reduce user confusion, since @::INC and @::ARGV would mean the same thing in P6 as P5 (the package will just have changed transparently). -NateThread Previous