Thus it was written in the epistle of Andy Wardley,
>
> I'm not assaulting Perl's flexibility or syntax. Nor am I suggesting
> that you, Randal or anyone else is particularly confused by this. I'm
> simply making a Request For Comments on a suggestion on how some of
> Perl's syntax might be made less "weird" (their choice of words, not mine).
> We may not decide to make it less weird, which is fine by me, but if we
> do, then this is one way in which we might do so. I *personally* can see
> the teaching advantage, but no-one is obliged to agree with me. :-)
>
> Please also note that at no point did I suggest making exceptions for
> $ARGV/@ARGV, etc. I just flagged them as issues that needed addressing.
Andy,
Agreed about the ARGV business. It would have to be addressed and I had
no illusions that you suggested it as an exception. Further, I do not feel
threatened, insulted, assaulted or even just salted :-). We recognized that
you were making a Request For Comments and, helpful folks that we are, we were
supplying the comments.
One of the difficult things in this business of ours is knowing where to be
in the ease-of-learning vs. power issue. It is even more difficult when trying
to decide where to be in a system one is not writing oneself which will be
learned by students one is not teaching.
In this case, I *think* that the learning curve is worth the advantages of
having the symbols we have, but I am only one voice.
Ted
--
Ted Ashton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), Info Sys, Southern Adventist University
==========================================================
To isolate mathematics from the practical demands of the sciences is to
invite the sterility of a cow shut away from the bulls.
-- Chebyshev
==========================================================
Deep thoughts to be found at http://www.southern.edu/~ashted
