Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from March 2005
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
> : > o.frobme(...)
> :
> : How 'bout ..frobme(...)? Or would it be a hell to tell from C<..>?
> : (Mnemonic reminder: '.'=myself, '..'=my mom - poor analogy, actually!)
> :
> : How 'bout a single underscore? _.frobme()?!?
>
> Thought about those in the night, but they don't strike me as visually
> distinct enough. They just look like someone stepped on the front
> of your expression.
But then do 'c' and 'o'? They're too identifier-like IMHO to be
psychologically associated with something 'special'. It kind of reminds me
of some fortran code I saw (I don't know fortran) and I could hardly cope
with those 'c'omments...
(However I would be favourable to {one,two} letter(s) long builtin
functions/operators, when they are frequently used (think huffmanization)
and talking about language design in general.
Michele
--
> Your right, I didn't think of that at all, but still, who's gonna go into
> the temp internet folder and create a cookie? At least not most users.
Of course *most* users aren't going to do that. *Most* users aren't
trying to hack your site! You don't program securely for *most* users -
you program securely for the few users who *are* trying to be malevolent.
- Paul Lalli in clpmisc, "Re: free source authentication script"
Thread Previous