On 4/17/02 9:11 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> I find it amazing that someone can make a statement like "99% of the
> time, people leave whitespace of the aggregate and the index", just
> based on personal experience.
>
> Based on the code *I* have written in the past 20 years, more than
> 99% of the time people do use whitespace between the aggregate and
> the index. ;-)
Must be a European thing. ;-)
> Seeing $hash{foo}{bar}{baz} all over,justmakeswewanttoignoreallwhitescape.
> Butthatissohardtoread.
Personally, I find C<$hash{foo}{bar}{baz}> a lot easier to read than
"justmakeswewanttoignoreallwhitescape". The braces break it up nicely.
However, once I start to see code like that, I start to think it's time for
a redesign. I don't much care for seeing a hash access go more than two
layers deep.
> Using ()'s doesn't mean the parser suddenly understands %hash {key}
> is an indexing operator, so that's not going to solve much. :-(
That's true. But the trade-off is significant and, IME, totally worthwhile.
Braces with whitespace in front of them are now always closures. This adds a
great deal of power and flexibility to the design. But if some people just
are lamenting the loss of the whitespace in hash accesses because that's the
standard that C set long ago, the, to quote Larry,
If you want to program in C, program in C. It's a nice language. I use it
occasionally... :-)
--Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Regards,
David
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394
http://david.wheeler.net/ Yahoo!: dew7e
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
