develooper Front page | perl.bootstrap | Postings from July 2000

Re: y/rple/yma/ (was: LALR (was Re: Working Group Proposal))

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Tim Bunce
Date:
July 24, 2000 14:59
Subject:
Re: y/rple/yma/ (was: LALR (was Re: Working Group Proposal))
Message ID:
20000724225306.M23550@ig.co.uk
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 05:44:00PM -0400, abigail wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 08:49:14PM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:01:00PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > 
> > > It's a touch more open than that. Typeglobs, for example, may get tossed, 
> > > and it's possible that some of the other grotty bits will go too. I can't 
> > > picture Larry making things un-perlish, but its all up for grabs.
> > 
> > He's also said that it's likely that dots will be allowed for indirect
> > object notation:
> > 
> > 	$foo.method();
> > 
> > same as
> > 
> > 	$foo->method();
> 
> Urg. Those are things I can't see the benefits of. It doesn't make
> the syntax any less complicated. It just creates another "there is
> more than one way to do it". But with the only benefit a keystroke.
> It just adds to the perceived problem of Perl being hard.
> 
> (BTW, does that also mean $foo.[1] and $foo.{1} are going to be legal?
> What about $foo.()? ;-))

Don't ask me! :-)

The point here is that, at this stage, everything is open. The dot
operator might not change. Then again the -> may disappear. Then again
I may be talking nonsense. I think this one comes down to trusting Larry.

Tim.

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About