[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Cozens) wrote on 26.03.01 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Oh, and you think Perl is more English than German?
In fact, I've come up with the same idea independently. Except I'd go a
bit further and claim that only a native English speaker could possibly
come up with the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Olekshy) wrote on 15.08.00 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What if we implemented something like the following?
Seems that the basic unwinder is
except { ... } = catch { ... }
and everything else can be written in terms of this:
catch { ... }
except { 1 } = catch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Torkington) wrote on 15.08.00 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Stephen P. Potter writes:
Why is it silly? Hashes and arrays are *conceptually* very similar
(even if they are extremely different implementation-wise).
If that were the case, I think students would have an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Torkington) wrote on 15.08.00 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* you misunderstand the purpose of $ and @, which is to indicate
singular vs plural.
Yes. That's one of the things that's wrong with it - maybe the biggest of
all.
It's one of the things that require
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Russ Allbery) wrote on 15.08.00 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
All variables should be C$x. They should behave appropriately
according to their object types and methods.
No thanks. I frequently use variables $foo, @foo, and %foo at the same
time when they contain the same
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) wrote on 15.08.00 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The ultimate target of a program's source code is the *programmer*.
True.
Programmers, being people (well, more or less... :), work best with symbols
and rich context.
This particular programmer *hates* what Perl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Wiger) wrote on 14.08.00 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, lexical variables don't belong to any package in Perl. They're not
in the symbol table, hence why others can't mess with them. That's why a
"my $var" is different from a "$pkg::var". The latter gets in the symbol
