Follow-up Comment #31, bug #67612 (group groff):
[comment #28 comment #28:]
> Fair point. My inclination in that case would be to document the meaning of
> the function's parameter once at the function definition, rather than at each
> call site, but given this function is called exactly twice, that seems to
> make no practical difference.
Yeah, and that's an argument for Python-style named arguments, which I'm not
sure that Perl versions as old as we want to be portable to (5.8) are
supported by.
>> Historically, both are pretty sloppily typed.
>
> I think that misses the point: C/C++ are weakly typed, and Perl is not typed.
> Adding a new variable type to a weakly typed language is a language
> expansion; adding one to an untyped language is a language redesign, because
> there's no framework to "add" to.
One could fairly say that I'll never forgive C for deciding that BCPL was a
good baseline to start from, and I'll never forgive Stroustrup for not just
reimplementing Ada.
On the other hand, if he had, we might not ever have gotten GNAT, and Ada
would be even more poorly known than it is.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?67612>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
