Thus it was written in the epistle of Steve Fink,
>
> Which has next to nothing to do with any particular issue. And it's too
> hard to argue when we agree.
:-).
> If I asked you which variable $x[4] is accessing, I bet you'd say @x.
> Which is one source of the confusion -- in one case, you use $@% to name
> the variable, and in the other, to provide context. Which leads to the
> other source -- $x[4] leaves unstated which variable is being
> manipulated; you have to infer it from the manipulation. And that's a
> set of rules that must be memorized. Which isn't that hard, but it's why
> I'd like to put a ladder up that little cliff on the learning curve by
> asking the compiler to tell you what you're screwing up instead of a
> seemingly unrelated message.
Ah. An improvement in compiler messages I could happily support :-).
> all
> dereferencing can be done with ->.
Is that "can be done with" or "must be done with"?
Either way, I like the idea. To me it reads more smoothly, and as I seldom
dare to use the double-punctuation form ($$ and so on) and use instead the
${$} form, it would be an equal number of characters and fewer curlies (which,
I think, is a win).
Ted
--
Ted Ashton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), Info Sys, Southern Adventist University
==========================================================
Inequality is the cause of all local movements.
-- da Vinci, Leonardo (1452-1519)
==========================================================
Deep thoughts to be found at http://www.southern.edu/~ashted
