John Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As someone else said before me, Perl should not be changed
Just Because We Can. Aspects which have proven usefulness and
are deeply engrained in the Perl mindset should not be tampered
with just because some recent convert finds them un-Algol-like.
Johan Vromans wrote:
If a Perl construct does not suffer from a slight change that makes
it easier to accept by new programmers, I think such changes should
be seriously considered.
Yes; but the world if full of language [sorry, couldn't resist]
which is optimized (or at least meant to be)
Branden wrote:
As to the second item b), I would say I withdraw my complaints about `my' if
my other proposal of `use scope' gets approved (since then I don't need `my'
anymore!). I guess I would be happier with `use scope', and I also think it
would make you happier, since it wouldn't
FOR
---
1. It becomes more consistent with other Perl functions
my is not a function. It is a declaration. Functions take arguments
and return values. my does not. It is language construct like if.
Unless, of course, you claim that if is a function, too. That
ways lies LISP.
Nathan Wiger wrote:
I wouldn't be so hasty to withdraw from the my binding argument. There's
many uses of "my" that are required even with the "use scope" pragma (at
least as I described it in RFC 64, but feel free to point it out if I
missed an application). I think there's some good
Nathan Wiger wrote:
To rehash, all this discussion should involve is the possibility of
making "my" swallow its list args:
my $x, $y, $z; # same as my($x, $y, $z)
That's it. No changing the way lists and , and = work in Perl.
But they are inextricably bound by perl's parsing rules.
You
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:45:21PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
But they are inextricably bound by perl's parsing rules.
Perl 5's parsing rules. I don't think Perl 6 *has* a parser just yet.
You can't keep Perl6 Perl5.
See?
--
What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from
This just isn't making sense.
Currently one has to write
my( $x, $y, $z ) = @_;
And you're willing to eviscerate perl to save two keystrokes;
you say you'd be happy with either
my $x, $y, $z = @_;
or
( $x, $y, $z ) = @_;
but the (consequent) fact that
$x,
Simon Cozens wrote:
John Porter wrote:
But they are inextricably bound by perl's parsing rules.
Perl 5's parsing rules. I don't think Perl 6 *has* a parser just yet.
As someone else said before me, Perl should not be changed
Just Because We Can. Aspects which have proven usefulness and
