On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 06:47:39PM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Mind you (purely devil's advocate), I'm not entirely sure the R-to-L
> > syntax truly _needs_ to be in Perl6. It's true I use it all the time,
> > but I can retrain to use L-to-R method calls with little effort.\
>
> Personally I really don't like the L to R style;
That's ok. Personally, I do. You find R2L easier to read, I find L2R
easier. TIMTOWDI. Perl6 should be smart enough to support both.
>I know we've got it
> for C<< for ... -> $a { ... } >>, but I can see the logic behind
> that, otherwise L to R looks worryingly like C++ to me.
I'm not convinced that language snobbery is a good reason to include
or exclude a feature from Perl6. And, if there is logic in having L2R
in one case (for), why shouldn't we generalize it to be useful (or at
least possible) in all cases?
> > If we have a post-given, e.g. C<map {...} given @a> or C<map {...} is
> > given @a>, I think that gives us R-to-L without any special {...}
> > rules at all.
>
> No, just the addition of much ugliness to code for no gain in
> readability. And one more area where Perl 6 fails to look like Perl 5
> for no good reason.
Personally, I'm not fond of the specific syntax that MikeL is suggesting.
However, I think that L2R is valuable enough that it should make it
into the language, and I don't have a better suggestion.
--Dks
