Damian Conway wrote:
>
> I wouldn't be averse to C<self> as the default and C<use invocant> as a sop to
> the C<this>erites and C<$ME>ophiles. But *they* might be!
This is baloney. I agree, we need to *pick something*!!
What should we do, make a "rename" pragma so everyone can be happy?
use rename want => '$NEED', && => 'THISTOO',
self => '$IAMALIVE', || => 'ORNEXT',
chomp => 'Ilovemymom', caller => '$CALLERFORTHIS',
my => 'var', $ => ')', = => 'assign',
-> => '-member-', ; => '++', die => 'perishPolitely',
system => 'fork', { => '/*', } => '*/', $! => $boogeyman,
( => '[', ) => ']', if => 'checktosee';
Then we can write really flexible code that looks just like my
"religion" wants it to!
checktosee [ $NEED eq 'HASH' ] /*
var )name assign )DEFAULT ORNEXT
$IAMALIVE-member-getName++
perishPolietly "Couldn't get )name" unless )name++
ilovemymom )name++
var )user assign )name ORNEXT "user"++
fork "ls -l" THISTOO perishPolitely "ls failed: $boogeyman"++
*/
This is, obviously, complete insanity. And a load of shit.
We can pick self(). Or this(). Or me(). Or context(). Or invocant().
Or $ME. Or $SELF. Or $THIS. Or $CONTEXT. Or $INVOCANT.
But we have to f**king pick *something*!!! Someone's going to be unhappy
but:
1. They'll get over it.
2. It's for the greater good.
Anyone who counters and says "but it's crucial that the invocant *must*
be named X" is inflexible and full of shit.
The *only* decent point I've heard so far is that some people might want
$self still as $_[0]. We should accomodate this.
-Nate
