At 05:50 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > 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.
>
>Generality good. Besides,
For many things, yes. For computers, say. For people, no. Generality bad.
Specificity and specialization good. People aren't generalists. They're a
collection of specialists. The distinction is important.
> $h assoc 'foo' => 'bar';
>
>if one were inclined to exploit the indirect object syntax.
>(And assuming highlander types...)
Even assuming highlander types, the punctuation carries a rather
significant amount of contextual information very compactly. And that
statement above requires thought. While thinking is a good thing (and
people could do with quite a bit more of it) exploiting instinct and
inherent capabilities give you faster response times, and quicker
comprehension.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
