Re^4: RFC: Should join subsume reduce?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: RFC: Should join subsume reduce? by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Feb 23, 2006 at 19:08 UTC
I said that “I don’t want to install another module” is self-contradictory when the proposed way to avoid installing a new module involves install a new version of Perl – and self-defeating when the module in question actually is in core already. I’m not sure how you concluded that this means that new features should not be added to Perl. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re^6: RFC: Should join subsume reduce? by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Feb 23, 2006 at 20:09 UTC
Because you made the same argument in 531861, where you weren't responding to an erroneous objection to having to install modules. Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.	[reply]
Re^5: RFC: Should join subsume reduce? by Anonymous Monk on Feb 23, 2006 at 18:24 UTC
Is it your position that there should be no new features added to Perl5? Is that an unreasonable position? Tread Perl5 as the stable branch of the language, and Perl6 as the experimental/growing version. It's not like the whole "reduce -> join" thing adds a whole lot of extra usability. Why tinker with a good thing? Am I missing something?	[reply]
Re^6: RFC: Should join subsume reduce? by MidLifeXis (Monsignor) on Feb 23, 2006 at 18:45 UTC
Tread Perl5 as the stable branch of the language, and Perl6 as the experimental/growing version. I cannot agree with per5 / perl6 in the above statement, however, perl5.8 / perl5.10¹ I could agree with. Perl 6 is still being defined. 1 - I hope I got the current numbers correct. I am currently stuck (due to vendor libraries) at 5.6. --MidLifeXis	[reply]