Larry Wall wrote:
>
>Branden writes:
>: The big question is: why fix what is not broken? Why introduce Javaisms and
>: VBisms to our pretty C/C++-oid Perl? Why brake compatibility with Perl 5
>: code (and Perl 5 programmers) for a zero net gain?
>
>It's not zero net gain, and I'm going to ignore the next person who says it.
Hokay, fine, I can respect that, but I'm with Branden here... I just don't
see the gain. Is it merely to make Perl's derefs look like Java's? If so,
so what? If there's more, please elucidate.
[...]
>
>What is it about . that seems to inspire allergic reactions in people?
>Surely it's not the . itself, but the requirement that you fit everything
>into that one syntactic mold. Perl's not going to do that.
No, more like ". is already used for something". The only reason I have
seen written out so far for the shift from -> to . and . to <insert op
here> is: it looks more like other languages. That seems like a whole
lot of fixing of non-broken syntax.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Roode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Software Engineer, Myxa Corporation
