Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> But I will *not* relish typing
>
> STDERR->print("darn")
Agreed. The day this is required is the day Perl stops becoming fun and
starts becoming C++.
No matter what, I think that any basic script should be able to be
written without any ->'s.
One goal of my RFC was to promote the idea that this
print STDOUT @stuff;
Could be written as:
print STDOUT, @stuff;
Which actually clears something up. You know that STDOUT is now an
argument, and NOT a function whose return value print is going to
operate on.
I strongly disagree that indirect objects must die. I just think the
syntax needs to be even *more* flexible, allowing better ways of calling
functions and voluntarily disambiguating them, without forcing ()'s all
over the place.
> Currently you cannot know (in isolation) what's happening with:
>
> X Y;
>
> This I certainly find quite disturbing. I often think that should
> much prefer that it be
Sorry, Tom, I've gotta take a shot at you here. :-) You chopped down my
RFC 147 - which admittedly deserved to die - because I said several
things about conflating references and numbers in scalars were
"disturbing". Same here. It's not disturbing, it's beautiful, at least
to me.
Why? Because I don't have to care! If I want to, I include the ->. But
if not, and my Cookbook just says:
use CGI;
chomp $stuff;
I don't have to care if that's CORE::chomp, CGI::chomp, main::chomp, or
$stuff->chomp. Simple. Beautiful. I *love* it. Really, I do.
-Nate
