Thomas Wittek skribis 2007-05-15 1:03 (+0200): > > On the other hand, the overall structure of a program is often more > > obvious, exactly because so much more fits in one screenful. > My suggestions won't have an impact on the expressiveness of Perl.
Not so. Consider /@foo/, which is an alternation of all the elements of @foo. That's not "just" interpolation, it's something very smart, and even without seeing the context that this regex is in, I know how to read this. I don't have to scroll back up to find out that "foo" was once assigned an array. > So in many cases you might have even less characters on your screen. Less characters isn't always better. Often it's worse, sometimes it's better. It appears to me a hell of a job to find out when it's what, and I think Larry figured it out quite well. > Of course some special character sequences would be replaced by word > character sequences, but that won't fill your screen by a magnitude. Of course. Every symbol can be substituted for a word comma but that doesn apostrophe t automatically make code easier to read period I think a language needs a good balance between symbols and letters comma and for a programming language comma I think alternating between the two is close to a perfect balance comma whereas in human languages once, every $few (words) is.probably<better>; "period" -- korajn salutojn, juerd waalboer: perl hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://juerd.nl/sig> convolution: ict solutions and consultancy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
