Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (stringifying comma) with =>

[Dan Sugalski]

At 05:17 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 03:53 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > >
> > >I guess it depends on what you think makes sense; but it seems to me
> > >that an array is a more fundamental data type; that it's easier (i.e.
> > >more efficient) to build associative arrays from arrays, than vice versa.
> >
> > It's silly to throw either of them out. Perl might be many things, but a
> > reductionist language it ain't...
>
>I think as long as equivalent (and better!) functionality is available,
>through equivalently terse syntax, who's to care?  Why is
>
>         $h{'foo'} = 'bar';
>
>instrinsically preferable to
>
>         assoc( %h, 'foo', 'bar' );
>
>???

Because it's conceptually clearer. You've more clues to what's going 
on--the syntax is rather specific, and more distinct. The function call 
method's much more general, and has fewer contextual clues as to what it's 
doing.

                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk