Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > How about borrowing from Objective C?
> > > >
> > > >[$object method("foo", "bar")];
> >
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 26 Apr 2001 23:19:49 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
>
> >$bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call
>
> $bar = method $obj()
>
> would be more consistent with perl's current
>
> $object = new Class()
>
> syntax.
Yes, well, some people wa
On 26 Apr 2001 23:19:49 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
>$bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call
$bar = method $obj()
would be more consistent with perl's current
$object = new Class()
syntax.
--
Bart.
Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
> > > > So why not
> > > >
> > > >
iers Cawley
Cc: Bart Lateur; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Curious: -> vs .
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
> > > So why not
> > >
> > > $object!method("foo", "bar");
> >
> > In my opinion, because it
Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
> > So why not
> >
> > $object!method("foo", "bar");
>
> In my opinion, because it doesn't provide sufficient visual
> distinction between $obj
> >the idea of a "dereference operator" dumbfounds lots
> >of folks. "What's an object got to do with a reference, much less a
> >pointer?" A p5 object is very confusing to others for this reason, and so
> >is the syntax.
>
> So you want a method invocation syntax that doesn't remind people of
>
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
> So why not
>
> $object!method("foo", "bar");
In my opinion, because it doesn't provide sufficient visual
distinction between $object and method(). At a glance, especially on
a crowded p
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
>the idea of a "dereference operator" dumbfounds lots
>of folks. "What's an object got to do with a reference, much less a
>pointer?" A p5 object is very confusing to others for this reason, and so
>is the syntax.
So you want a method in
On 4/25/01 5:52 PM, Dan Brian wrote:
> the idea of a "dereference operator" dumbfounds lots of folks. "What's an
> object got to do with a reference, much less a pointer?" A p5 object is very
> confusing to others for this reason, and so is the syntax.
Then remove it from the reference syntax! :)
> You're thinking of objects as references and references as akin to
> pointers, which makes sense because that's how they're implemented in Perl
> 5. If you think of objects as their own entities, however, or think of
> references as something other than pointers (in particular, something that
>
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>- C compatibility. One of Perl's great strengths
> over other HLL's is C compatibility. Though
> this is still arguably not as good as it can be,
> why distance ourselves from the language we're
> trying to interact with?
You're
I'm just gonna post this, then back off and listen (been yapping too
much...)
The previous discussions about string concat and how to replace . have
revealed that people are somewhat divided over whether replacing -> with
. is actually good thing or not.
I'm just curious what the arguments for a
14 matches
Mail list logo
