David Green wrote:
> I bet we actually don't disagree much; I'm not really against "ro" --
> I'm just not against "readonly" because of its length. If I were
> writing casually, I'd use "rw" and "ro"; formally, I'd use "read only"
> and "read/write" (or even "readable and writable"). At an in-bet
On 2008 Sep 24, at 17:45, David Green wrote:
On 2008-Sep-23, at 5:27 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
David Green wrote:
Happily, brevity often aids clarity. The rest of the time, it
should be up to one's editor; any editor worth its salt ought to
easily auto-complete "ro" into "readonly".
Ee
On 2008-Sep-23, at 5:27 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
David Green wrote:
Happily, brevity often aids clarity. The rest of the time, it
should be up to one's editor; any editor worth its salt ought to
easily auto-complete "ro" into "readonly".
Eeep! The "your IDE should write your verbose c
Michael G Schwern schwern-at-pobox.com |Perl 6| wrote:
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
I'm not opposed to having it be "ro", but wonder why he didn't call it that
in the first place, so there must be a reason.
Nobody's perfect?
My other thought is that since parameters are read-only by default
Michael G Schwern schwern-at-pobox.com |Perl 6| wrote:
It should be possible to alias it in your own scope easily.
Every time someone replies to a Perl 6 language design nit with "but you can
change the grammar" *I* kill a kitten.
*meowmmmf*
That would not be a change in the gramma
David Green wrote:
> On 2008-Sep-23, at 2:32 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>> My other thought is that since parameters are read-only by default
>> it's not
>> thought you'd have to write it much so clarity wins out over brevity,
>> the flip
>> side of Huffamn encoding. But that doesn't work out so
On 2008-Sep-23, at 2:32 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
My other thought is that since parameters are read-only by default
it's not
thought you'd have to write it much so clarity wins out over
brevity, the flip
side of Huffamn encoding. But that doesn't work out so good for
normal
variable de
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
> I'm not opposed to having it be "ro", but wonder why he didn't call it that
> in the first place, so there must be a reason.
Nobody's perfect?
My other thought is that since parameters are read-only by default it's not
thought you'd have to write it much so clarity wins o
