Let me summerize my undestanding of this (if my bozo bit isn't already
irrevocably set):
* %hash<<foo>> retains the features of P5 $hash{foo} but does nothing to counter the
damage of removal of barewords
* %hash`foo occupies an important nitch, trading features (slice, autovivication)
to optmize for the common case, undoing the pain of the loss of barewords,
serving as even a superior alternative
* %hash`foo and %hash ~ `ls` can coexist without breaking anything as this is currently
illegal, unused syntax
* %hash`foo can be added by the user, but users are seldom aware of even a small
fraction
of the things on CPAN and there is a sitgma against writing non-standard code
* %hash`s is an example of a small thing that would be easy to implement in core
but would be used constantly (if JavaScript is any indication, every few lines),
giving a lot of bang for the buck
* Rather than eliciting public comment on %hash`foo (and indeed %hash<<foo>>)
the proposal is being rejected out of hand (incidentally, the mantra of the Java
community Process seems to be "you don't need X, you've got Y", and it took
.Net before they woke up and realized that maybe they should consider their
community in the community process - after ignoring a universal call for
generics for over 5 years it's little wonder .Net ate their cake)
-scott
On 0, "[EMAIL PROTECTED] Juerd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-04-15 14:29 (-0400):
> > On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 16:56, Juerd wrote:
> > > How many of those backticks
> > Note, those weren't backticks, those were programs. There were 123
> > PROGRAMS that used backticks or equivalent syntax.
>
> I said backticks, and I meant backticks. I'm not sure why there is
> confusion over this.
>
> Perhaps this can disambiguate: how many of those backticks in those 123
> programs.
>
> > > And how often are simple hash subscripts used?
> > Very often.
>
> Many times as often as qx and friends?
>
> > Security is not an issue for this code.
>
> It should be.
>
> > code review? You made and assertion: backticks aren't used much. That
> > assertion is faulty.
>
> I didn't formulate my statement carefully enough. I should have said:
> "as much as hash subscription".
>
> > Executing external code is commonplace, and probably done more often
> > than method invocation in the wild!
>
> I want to doubt that. Or better: help change that.
>
> > > It's just one keyword and a set of quotes more: $( readpipe "pwd" )
> > And thus, it is not like the bash/zsh style syntax in the least.
>
> Why should Perl have to limit itself to shell-like syntax? It doesn't do
> that with if-constructs, foreach-loops, procedures, etcetera, etcetera,
> etcetera.
>
> > Unless there is substantially new information in this thread, I think
> > you have presented your case for yet another new subscripting syntax.
>
> I think I have presented two cases. The removal of `` and the
> introduction of %hash`key. Either can be implemented without breaking
> the other, though I obviously think both letting `` go and introducing
> the infix ` is better.
>
>
> Juerd
