On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:03:03 +0200, Michael Mangelsdorf wrote:
> I also tried to say that as special characters (not 7-bit ASCII)
> like for hyper ops have already been admitted, the question of just how
> far ($foo&bar) this admission should (be allowed to) is just around
> the corner.

Completely my 2¢ following.

Even if programmers want to be able to put funny characters in variable
names, I'm against allowing them to embed characters that already have
other meaning in the language (grandfathered exception: underscore).  I
expect +, *, / to be operators with some kind of additive, multiplicative,
and divisive semantics, and I am going to have a very hard time reading
programs that contain variables like $foo*bar without a mental derailing
at that asterisk.  I won't mind $ricks_café, or $coke® or $¢ =
$dollars*100 because those symbols have no other meaning in the language,
but if we allow operator symbols in identifiers then the world will divide
into those people who look at Perl 6 programs only through
syntax-highlighting editors and don't know what all the fuss is about
naming a variable $e*trade since it is all purple, and those people
who give up on reading the other people's programs.

I'm all for giving people enough rope to either hang themselves or make a
hammock, but do we really want to open this can of worms?

Peter Scott

Reply via email to