Yuval Kogman skribis 2005-07-15 1:09 (+0300): > > use dot; > If we have pragmas for the 99 Perl6's that every wacko wants to > have, we won't have any readability. > The syntax needs to be consistent and useful, even at the price of > some danger.
Agreed. > I don't want to be using a language designed for idiots - I know > what I'm doing, and I like the power that perl 5 has given me. Me too. > I'd rather have '.foo' not work on $?SELF at all than have that. .foo never working on $?SELF is consistent with the initial design, the idea that the default variable is always $_ (as explained very well by Damian), and the design until a few days ago. I really do not understand why Larry has changed his mind about .foo, as the meaning of .foo has not been topic of discussion for a long time now. The syntax of ./foo did receive a lot of both negative and positive attention, and I could understand that ./foo, being found ugly by some people, would be pulled out of the language in favour of some yet to invent syntax, or perhaps without replacement. That, however, has nothing to do with .foo. Or at least HAD nothing to do with .foo, until Larry decided that if $_ := $?SELF, .foo would be special all of a sudden. If that is so, then "lc" without arguments would also need to be special, as that also defaults to $_, which would then be the same thing as $?SELF, which makes things special. "lc" without arguments would also need to be forbidden, following this way of thinking. We can only hope our dictator turns benevolent again, at least regarding the one thing we all agree about (and have agreed about for quite some time): that .foo must always mean $_.foo. Juerd -- http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html