in reply to Re^3: Perl 6 ... dead?
in thread Perl 6 ... dead?
Oh, I completely agree. However, the list couldn't even make it past those absolute simplest bits. We're talking about freakin' literals here! There wasn't enough solid ground to document *LITERALS*! I mean, come on, if we couldn't get past strings and numbers what's going to happen with something complicated?
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^5: Perl 6 ... dead?
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Sep 02, 2004 at 16:30 UTC |