Re: sigil-optional subject clarification

Hi Linda,
> What are you talking about? This is the 1st time I've broughtthis up. Are you confusing a sigil-optional syntax with something else?

In your email with subject "Two further features …", the 2nd point was "Going 'unnecessary-sigil' optional".

Nick replied to you, saying:
> We are *NOT* going to remove sigils […]Please stop suggesting changes that go against clear decisions of the PSC.

You then followed up with this email, subject "sigil-optional subject clarification".

Just to be clear, we’re saying no more discussion on changing the sigility of Perl, whether that’s removing sigils, making them optional, or some other change. Sigils are here to stay.

Thanks,
Neil

• Re: Two further features, one definitely needed for survival,otherlikely needed. by Aaron Priven
• Re: opsig feature... by L A Walsh
• Re: opsig feature... by mah.kitteh via perl5-porters
• Re: Two further features, one definitely needed for survival,otherlikely needed. by Dan Book
• Two further features, one definitely needed for survival, otherlikely needed. by L A Walsh
• Re: Two further features, one definitely needed for survival, otherlikely needed. by John Ankarström
• Re: Two further features, one definitely needed for survival, otherlikely needed. by Philip R Brenan
• Re: Two further features, one definitely needed for survival, otherlikely needed. by Christian Walde
• Re: Two further features, one definitely needed for survival, otherlikely needed. by John Ankarström
• Re: Two further features, one definitely needed for survival, otherlikely needed. by Oodler 577 via perl5-porters
• Re: sigil-optional subject clarification by L A Walsh
• Re: sigil-optional subject clarification by Neil Bowers
• Re: sigil-optional subject clarification by L A Walsh
• Re: sigil-optional subject clarification by Ricardo Signes
• Re: sigil-optional subject clarification by Neil Bowers
• Re: Two further features, one definitely needed for survival, otherlikely needed. by Alexandr Evstigneev
• Re: Two further features, one definitely needed for survival, otherlikely needed. by Nicholas Clark
• Re: Two further features, one definitely needed for survival, otherlikely needed. by Tomasz Konojacki
• Re: Two further features, one definitely needed for survival, otherlikely needed. by Nicholas Clark
• Re: Two further features, one definitely needed for survival, otherlikely needed. by Achim Gratz
• Re: Two further features, one definitely needed for survival, otherlikely needed. by Nicholas Clark
• Re: Two further features, one definitely needed for survival, otherlikely needed. by Sergey Aleynikov
• Re: binary compatibility between minor releases by Nicholas Clark
• binary compatibility between minor releases by Niko Tyni
• Re: Two further features, one definitely needed for survival, otherlikely needed. by Paul "LeoNerd" Evans
• Re: Two further features, one definitely needed for survival, otherlikely needed. by Philip R Brenan
• Re: Two further features, one definitely needed for survival, otherlikely needed. by L A Walsh