On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Juerd wrote:
Reducing line noise isn't my goal, though. I feel that the implicit
defaulting to $_ makes Perl a more natural and elegant language, and
would like this principle being extended to these operators.
Indeed, both the implicit defaulting to $_ AND the
Michele Dondi skribis 2005-10-25 17:05 (+0200):
Now, one that I've sometimes desired is a two level $_, i.e. a variable,
say, $__ referring to the _second next_ enclosing lexical scope. I am
aware that in this vein one may ask a third analogue and so on, but let's
face it: $_ already covers
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Juerd wrote:
Michele Dondi skribis 2005-10-25 17:05 (+0200):
Now, one that I've sometimes desired is a two level $_, i.e. a variable,
say, $__ referring to the _second next_ enclosing lexical scope. I am
aware that in this vein one may ask a third analogue and so on, but
On 2005-10-25 11:17 AM, Michele Dondi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find $__ confusing, and prefer $OUTER::_, which already exists.
Hmmm... maybe you're right that $__ is too huffmanized (and hence
confusing) but $OUTER::_ is somewhat too few...
What's confusing about $__ is that it looks too
Michele Dondi skribis 2005-10-25 17:17 (+0200):
Hmmm... maybe you're right that $__ is too huffmanized (and hence
confusing) but $OUTER::_ is somewhat too few...
for (1..9) - $n { # ought to be more than enough
eval qq[
macro prefix:\$_$n { \${ OUTER:: x $n }_ }
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Juerd wrote:
for (1..9) - $n { # ought to be more than enough
eval qq[
macro prefix:\$_$n { \${ OUTER:: x $n }_ }
];
}
And then you can use $_1 .. $_9. I think $_1 is much clearer than $__,
but I think neither is needed in the standard
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 05:26:32PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Michele Dondi skribis 2005-10-25 17:17 (+0200):
: Hmmm... maybe you're right that $__ is too huffmanized (and hence
: confusing) but $OUTER::_ is somewhat too few...
:
: for (1..9) - $n { # ought to be more than enough
:
