On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 03:58:31PM -0400, John Porter wrote: > Graham Barr wrote: > > As I said in another mail, consider > > $bar[$foo]; > > $bar{$foo}; > > But if @bar is known to be one kind of array or > the other, where is the ambiguosity that that is > meant to avoid? I did not say it was avoiding ambuguity, I said it helped with readability when $foo held something like "1.2" But I really think this thread is going no where. Is there REALLY a benefit in changing things to use only [] or is this change for the sake of change. And rememeber this is still perl, so why change something unless it gains extra benefit. Graham.
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Buddha Buck
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Damian Conway
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation David L. Nicol
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Bart Lateur
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Edward Peschko
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Whipp
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens