develooper Front page | perl.bootstrap | Postings from July 2000

Re: y/rple/yma/ (was: LALR (was Re: Working Group Proposal))

July 24, 2000 14:45
Re: y/rple/yma/ (was: LALR (was Re: Working Group Proposal))
Message ID:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 08:49:14PM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:01:00PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 10:52 AM 7/24/00 -0700, Gary Richardson wrote:
> > >
> > >I suppose saying that 'not changing the language' was wrong, but perl6's 
> > >focus is* to not be a language rewrite, but an implementation rewrite. 
> > >Stuff that was marked as deprecated has essentially already been removed 
> > >from the language spec.
> > >
> > >* This sounds like I'm authoritve; I am not. I am just stating what I see.
> > 
> > It's a touch more open than that. Typeglobs, for example, may get tossed, 
> > and it's possible that some of the other grotty bits will go too. I can't 
> > picture Larry making things un-perlish, but its all up for grabs.
> He's also said that it's likely that dots will be allowed for indirect
> object notation:
> 	$foo.method();
> same as
> 	$foo->method();

Urg. Those are things I can't see the benefits of. It doesn't make
the syntax any less complicated. It just creates another "there is
more than one way to do it". But with the only benefit a keystroke.
It just adds to the perceived problem of Perl being hard.

(BTW, does that also mean $foo.[1] and $foo.{1} are going to be legal?
What about $foo.()? ;-))

Abigail Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About