"The valuable contributions that vstrings make to the language require an electron microscope to observe, yet the effort required to implement them could have built a new Mt. Rushmore monument :-)."
Re:vstrings
jdavidb on 2002-09-04T12:40:21
I was going to make a comment like that in response to this week's summary, but I was worried I would hurt somebody's feelings, since there's still work going on on the feature.
I'm under the impression someone emphatically stated vstrings will not go into Perl 6. True?
Re:vstrings
rafael on 2002-09-04T13:31:46
Here's the reply from P5P (by Yitzchak).Re:vstrings
jdavidb on 2002-09-04T13:47:49
Ah. It sounds like the community has a consensus, then. Good. Reminds me of the Onion last year:
- Larry: Pseudo-hashes must die!
- (audience erupts into cheers and applause)
- Larry: or so says RFC number such and such, and I tend to agree with him.
Re:vstrings
Matts on 2002-09-04T14:33:01
And this is a perfect example of what modules are for, not core code.Re:vstrings
rafael on 2002-09-04T14:50:57
Hugo just posted this on P5P : Larry continues to like them [the vstrings] despite various attempts to convince him otherwise, so they are here to stay. I think they could become much less of a bugbear if John's sterling work culminates in a consistent and appropriately documented set of behaviours.Watch the next P5P report... Perhaps vstrings will be cleaner in Perl 6, with an appropriate PMC type etc...
