in reply to Re^4: What's wrong with Perl 6?
in thread What's wrong with Perl 6?
Completely agreeing and pointing out so to underline the nice way into which you put this concept, which is often implicit!
Actually, I merely rephrased that. I can't recall whom I cite it from and the exact word per word.
I'm not really sure if I understand what you mean. You are aware that in Perl 5 Foo::Bar::Baz bears no relationship to Foo::Bar, arent' you? What do you mean with "nested"?
Yes I am aware. That's just what I exactly meant by "nested", I can have Foo::Bar and Foo::Bar::Baz instead of Foo_Bar and Foo_Bar_Baz (no nested here). I didn't indicate anything between 'nested package name' and 'package relationship'. It's clear that Foo_Bar or Foo_Bar_Baz or CGI_Application_Plugin_Authentication_Driver_DBI are all under the same namespace, while Bar is under Foo and Baz is under Foo::Bar. But I do take advantage that I can arrange some classes/packages stucture within a suite of modules.
Oh, inimitable but not unimprovable. Indeed Rules smell like they will be impressive. More power and more clarity at the same time!
Thanks for the correction :-) That was not a typo, it was a mispell.
Thank you, it's indeed in perlsyn.
Do you really see that as particularly perlish? I'm currently a Perl-only kinda guy, but I would rather qualify it as quality typical of most modern enough programming languages that are serious about themselves...
At least based on my limited knowledge about other languages. I consider it as Perl's strength in providing high-granular variable scoping: file, package, block, inner-block, inner-inner-block, etc.
Open source softwares? Share and enjoy. Make profit from them if you can. Yet, share and enjoy!