in reply to Re^5: What's wrong with Perl 6?
in thread What's wrong with Perl 6?

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.

Expect great improvements in that area too, with 6!

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.

Which correction? I didn't notice any typo nor misspell: I was agreeing once again with your point and "improving" it in a 6-enthusiastic fashion...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: What's wrong with Perl 6?
by jonnyfolk (Vicar) on Sep 19, 2007 at 21:42 UTC
    'Unimitable' was corrected to 'inimitable'

    - Boswell -