in reply to Re^4: (Sort of) poll: what Perl6 features do you consider {likely,desirable} to leak into P5?
in thread (Sort of) poll: what Perl6 features do you consider {likely,desirable} to leak into P5?
Of these, // is much easier to implement, and that's probably why it already has been implemented.No. The main reason it was implemented is because people have wanted this for at least a decade. And wanted it badly. There have been some very heated arguments about this operator (and its name, anyone remember the ||| and ?? suggestions?) in the past.
in the context of this thread could very well be interpreted as a plea to please no longer discuss Perl 5 innovation.Then you have missed the meaning of what I wanted to indicate. My point is that, compared with the past, development of Perl5 seems to be done by only a few people. I'd welcome it if more people worked on Perl5!
But discussing it on Perl Monks gets us whiny replies like yours.The only thing that gets me 'whiny' is when I see people suggesting things that should be implemented - but without doing the legwork themselves. I read your see no reason why it couldn't be implemented in current Perl as being such a suggestion.
My point is that we can all wish for Perl6 features to be implemented in Perl5, but that "not breaking backwards compatability" isn't the only reason they won't find their way into Perl5. Someone has to actually do the work.
Well, you saw no reason why it couldn't be implemented in current Perl - but I did. And that's the reason.But unless you write the patch, or find someone to write it, it's unlikely to be added.Amen, but so what?
In Section
Meditations