Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 06:28:23PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > Well, just to counter argue, I feel exactly the opposite way. I'd like
> > the keyword to be "constant" instead of "const". I've always thought
> > "const" was a needless save of 3 characters. Constants should be obvious
> > to pick out. The inventors of UNIX, when asked "What was your biggest
> > mistake?" replied "Spelling creat() without the 'e'". Ditto here, IMO.
>
> Amen.
>
> > Which is the easiest for anyone to tell what's going on?
> >
> > my num $PI : constant = 3.1415926;
> > my num $PI : const = 3.1415926;
> > my num $PI =| 3.1415926;
> >
> > Admittedly, "const" is pretty darn close to "constant", so tolerable.
> > But =| is way too obscure, I think.
>
> Not only obscure but backwards IMHO. Rather than using some weird
> assignment operator to modify the attributes of a scalar (after all,
> constancy is a property of the scalar), better the attributes should
> be verbose and explicit.
>
Yes, I agree too. I'm going to submit a v2 of this RFC shortly, which will
clarify a few points about the use of const with lists and hashes and make
the change to attribute notation, but otherwise will be pretty much the
same.
Since there hasn't really been concensus on this issue, those interested in
alternative notation, or a wider array of scenarios where constant can be
used, should submit a counter-RFC.
