Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 09:01 PM 2/15/01 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:08:47AM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > However, that still doesn't get rid of the gotchas - personally I think that:
>
> > >
> > > my $a, $b, $c;
> > >
> > > should be an error, a warning, or DWIM. Especially:
> >
> >Personally, I don't think so.
> >
> > GetOptions (foo => \my $foo,
> > bar => \my $bar);
> >
> >and
> >
> > tie my $shoe => $tring;
> >
> >are just way too practical to suddenly require more hoops.
>
> I don't want to DWIM this. Would it be so bad to have to type
>
> GetOptions (foo => \my ($foo),
> bar => \my $bar);
If you're really all for maintainability, then surely you mean:
GetOptions (foo => \my ($foo),
bar => \my ($bar));
otherwise some dumb hacker (eg. You, two weeks later) could come to
add annother pair of args by sticking C<, baz => \my $baz> into the
args list...
> tie my ($shoe) => $tring;
>
> if we made 'my' consistent with all other functions that take lists
> (yes-I-know-it's-not-a-function)?
Do you not *care* how ugly you're making something that was once
compact, expressive and elegant? And if it's not a function then WTF
do you want to make it look like one, potentially sowing more
confusion.
