[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Torkington) wrote on 15.08.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > * you misunderstand the purpose of $ and @, which is to indicate > singular vs plural. Yes. That's one of the things that's wrong with it - maybe the biggest of all. It's one of the things that require constant attention to get right for me. It's *not* natural. Yes, singular and plural per se are natural. But an array element *is not* singular to an array. Look at that sentence. It contains two singulars: an array, and an array element. There's no plural in there. Perl "plural" is a very different concept from natural language plural, and *that* is why it's bad. $ vs. @ is not really about singular or plural. It's about context dependency. And context dependency is bad for people. There is a reason that no language after Algol68 used a context dependant grammar. There is a reason that nearly all modern computer languages don't make expression evaluation dependant on expression context. The reason is *not* that this is easier for computers. It is easier, sure, but not all that much. But it is *a lot* easier for humans. A rose is a rose is a rose. Human minds really don't like context dependancy. MfG Kai
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get rid ... Kai Henningsen
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get ... Mike Pastore
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get ... Russ Allbery
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get rid of @% Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get rid ... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get ... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's ... John Porter
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - le... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise... John Porter
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - le... Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get rid ... Kai Henningsen
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get ... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's ... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - le... John Porter
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's ... Damien Neil
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - le... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise... Russ Allbery
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise... Ariel Scolnicov
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line n... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line n... Steve Fink
- Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get ... Damien Neil