Re: we already have barewords as variables if we want them Re: the C JIT

2000-09-08 Thread David L. Nicol
John Porter wrote: undecorated variable names suffer from this showstopping weakness: they can't be interpolated. Unless we change other aspects of perl's syntax to support it, that is -- maybe s/${x}/5/. Now, maybe we can live without variable interpolation; but I'd bet most perl

Re: we already have barewords as variables if we want them Re: the C JIT

2000-09-08 Thread John Porter
David L. Nicol wrote: I am not suggesting dropping the magic signifiers from the beginning of Perl scalars and containers. In fact, I resent these insinuations (first Nathan's, now yours) that I am among those who suggest dropping the decorations from perl scalars. I am not among that

we already have barewords as variables if we want them Re: the C JIT

2000-09-06 Thread David L. Nicol
Nathan Wiger wrote: "David L. Nicol" wrote: s/x/5/; # this is still going to replace # all the eckses in $_ with fives. Why? This is an arbitrary decision if you've declared variables to be barewords. Misstating my position, when I take one, is and will

Re: we already have barewords as variables if we want them Re: the C JIT

2000-09-06 Thread John Porter
David L. Nicol wrote: A bareword inside doublequotes is not interpreted, in Perl or C. No; a "bareword" in quotes (any kind) is not a bareword. -- John Porter