|Syntactic Confectionery Delight|
Moo to you too (was Re^12: A "Perl-7" that I could actually USE right now)by raiph (Chaplain)
|on Dec 21, 2013 at 07:29 UTC||Need Help??|
Thanks for taking a peek at P6 and being brave enough to talk about it. :)
You are of course not the first to express surprise about () being a parcel even though it contains no commas, and (1) not being a parcel even though it is in parentheses. And you're not the first to express concern -- won't this aspect of the language lead to problems?
I read the entire #perl6 log every day and have done for over 2 years. I don't recall anyone reporting actual problems related to this.
Which might be because the rule (it's about commas, not parens) works out fine. Or might be because no one is writing P6 code using one item parcel literals. (Of course, some may say I could easily stop at "code" there.)
Anyhoo, Larry has said he doesn't think it's a problem in practice and thus far it seems he's right.
FILE_NOT_FOUND will mess up the table formatting which might delay getting to 6.0.0.
Ideally we'd have a value that is at least as huffmanized and mnemonically appropriate as Mu (which, btw, stands for "Most Undefined" among many other meanings such as Modern Undef and 無).
How about P6? Isn't that a good answer to "True? False? Who knows?"
You know, there's something very spooky about all this. Just as at least one (1) other person has already been troubled by zero and one item parcel literal syntax, so too at least one (well, actually, exactly, one) person has talked on #perl6 about using FILE_NOT_FOUND in P6 code and, while one might be tempted to dismiss him because he proposed the utterly illogical notion of it being an aspect of Falsehood, the real truth of the matter is that THEIR NAME RHYMES WITH MU.
Anyhoo, I think you should consider visiting #perl6 and asking lue to discuss P6.
»ö« . o O ( "the celebrity tell-all of the Perl-6 cult?" )