Dan Sugalski writes: > I dunno. Color me unconvinced--I do use the <> enough in non-while context > (and in non-implied while context) to make the whole idea of next feel > rather... nasty. And $FOO.next? Yuck. Reading lines/records in is one of > the most fundamental things one can do in a computer language (especially > perl) and having to jump through OO hoops to do simple things just feels > like a step in the wrong direction. Conceptual elegance and orthogonality > are nice enough, but we have enough of those languages. (If I wanted > Eiffel, I know where to find it) Amen. /acy
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns James Mastros
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Graham Barr
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Nathan Wiger
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns James Mastros
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Michael G Schwern
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns David L. Nicol
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Larry Wall
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Nathan Wiger
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Graham Barr
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dan Sugalski
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns A. C. Yardley
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Nathan Wiger
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Larry Wall
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns David L. Nicol
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Siracusa
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Richard Proctor
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Nathan Wiger
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns David L. Nicol
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Uri Guttman
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Bryan C . Warnock