RE: what I meant about hungarian notation

[David Grove]

> >An object of type "abstracted reference to a chair" is _NOT_ an object of
> >type "numeric or string that magicly switches between as needed"
>
> So what you're really saying is that references aren't really scalars,
> but their own type. Thus they need their own prefix.
>
> But we've sort of run out of possible prefixes.

I've thought about that too. However, it's a misapplication of perlishness.
$ is a singularity, @ is a multiplicity, and % is a multiplicity of pairs
with likely offspring as a result. ;-)

In that thought pattern, the words "string", "number", and "reference" don't
even exist.

p