Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2001
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 02:39:52PM +0000, Simon Cozens wrote: > On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 02:21:34PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote: > > Stephen McCamant <smcc@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> writes: > > > > > IMHO, pp_pre(inc|dec) were written the way they are now for a reason > > > (namely efficiency), and it isn't worth slowing them down just to make > > > some pathological examples more intuitive. > > > > And, my dear Stephen, how much is the slowdown for an average Perl > > program? > > I'm of the opinion that if people think that writing > > (++$a, ++$a) > > is a good idea, then they're fundamentally confused anyway. "Fundamentally confused"? Huh? I fail to see what's confusing about it. It doesn't work, but that's because '++' is an ugly hack carried over from C, but from a language point of view, it's only the first '++' that's confusing, not any additional ones. > Slowing > Perl down isn't going to unconfuse them. Bleh. Unquantified statements of slowing down things are usually political arguments. In Perl, speed isn't the all important thing, otherwise, Perl would be quite different that it's now. I don't think the ability of have multiple side effects is a very important thing, but I would find it convenient if it were there, and I do believe it fits in Perl's DWIM paradigm. AbigailThread Previous | Thread Next