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