On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 09:23:23PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: > "David Whipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Thus, the perl5 transalations would be: > > > > foo() => $self->foo() > > .foo() => $_->foo() > > &foo() => foo() > > ... > > For reasons that I can't quite put my finger on at the moment, I > really, really don't like that approach. One of the really nice things > about perl 4 was that we didn't have to use & any more. Making it > essential seems like a horribly retrograde step. I suppose you could > require the & only when calling subroutines from within a method/class > definitions, but I still don't like it.
I agree. It makes an exception where none is needed (&foo() required instead of foo()) just to re-use the syntax for a less common construction that could just as easily be represented any number of other ways. Allison
