Larry Wall wrote: > It's only a problem when some tries to write > > .=#( ... :-)
[tries to grok the meaning of "$foo.=#(Hello, World!)"] [fails] > : All true. But it avoids the headache of figuring out whether "..#" is > : supposed to parse as a double-dot followed by a line-gobbling comment > : or as a single dot followed by a delimited comment. > > One-pass, longest-token parsing says it has to be a .. followed by > a # comment. No headache, really. And nobody in their right mind > would write that anyway. Many perl programmers aren't in their right mind. :) Seriously, the question is which paradigm makes more sense: a null method (dot precedes pound), or a special kind of comment (dot follows pound)? The former emphasizes the "you don't have to put it at the end of a line" aspect, while the latter emphasizes the "you can strip it out without harming the surrounding code" aspect. IMHO, the latter is the more important point to emphasize - especially since the former brings so much baggage with it. And I suspect that the confusion between # and #."" would be minor, _especially_ with syntax highlighters and the like in common use. -- Jonathan Lang
