On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:56:01PM -0500, Me wrote: > > Hm, OK. What does this access and using what method ? > > > > $foo = '1.2'; > > @bar[$foo]; > > This is an argument against conflating @ and %. No it is not. > It has nothing to do with using [] instead of {}. Yes it does. I was asking if the above is equivalent to $bar[$foo] or $bar{$foo} in todays perl. > > Having different brackets for accessing array or hash > > actually does help when reading code. Using the same > > is just adding unnecessary complexity > > I can't tell if you mean this as a summary of your > earlier points, in which case please note response > above, or a separate point. If it is a separate point, > you don't say why, so, why? I mean exactly what it says. Not using [] instead of {} actually helps with readability. Graham.
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation <C. Garrett Goebel>
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Larry Wall
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Damian Conway
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Michael G Schwern
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Buddha Buck
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Damian Conway
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation David L. Nicol