Re: each @array

On Sep 10, 2007, at 1:12 PM, demerphq wrote:

> On 9/10/07, Nicholas Clark <nickccl4.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 10:03:04PM +0200, demerphq
wrote:
>>> On 9/10/07, Artur Bergman <skycrucially.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 10, 2007, at 12:50 PM, demerphq
wrote:
>>
>>>> It was, we left the innovation to Perl 6.
>>>
>>> Well, this doesn't seem to have been a good
strategy.*
>>
>> It was a damn good idea at the time.
>>
>> Without it Perl 5 would have descended into massive
flame wars  
>> about batshit
>> innovation versus backwards compatibility, without
anything  
>> actually getting
>> done.
>>
>> As it was, it freed up the competent people to get
5.6 out. And  
>> then 5.8 out.
>
> Ok, fine. Then let me rephrase: it seems this strategy
is no longer in
> the best interests of the community.
>
> Yves
>
> -- 
> perl -Mre=debug -e
"/just|another|perl|hacker/"

There is something to be said for the word done.

Artur

Artur Bergman wrote:
> There is something to be said for the word done.

The thing about Perl being "done" is that its
highly subjective.  Some people
are perfectly happy with Perl right now, others want much
more.

The thing about feeling that Perl is "done" now is
that, if you like, you
simply never have to upgrade again.  Everyone who thinks
Perl is "done" can
just never download anything but bug fix releases for the
rest of their lives
and be perfectly happy about it.  Write bug fixes for the
existing maint
branches forever.

The important thing is that the people who think Perl is
"done" not be a drag
on the people who think Perl has a lot yet to go.  Leave the
folks working on
5.12 and Perl 6 alone to run to (hell|heaven), depending on
how you look at it.

You have your dream version of Perl, now let me build mine
in peace.


-- 
Robrt:   People can't win
Schwern: No, but they can riot after the game.