develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from August 2001

Re: The case for \.

Thread Previous
From:
Nick Ing-Simmons
Date:
August 17, 2001 03:08
Subject:
Re: The case for \.
Message ID:
20010817100830.1723.3@bactrian.ni-s.u-net.com
Brent Dax <brentdax@cpan.org> writes:
>(Note that I am not necessarily advocating \. over other syntaxes--I'm fine 
>with forms such as \?.)
>
>Many people here who originally advocated \. seemed to be placated when the 
>"typeclass syntax" (for lack of a better term) was proposed.  They feel that 
>(\[$@%*&]) is just as good as (\.).
>
>*Come on!*
>
>
>Perl is all about streamlining programming, and one of the big ways it does 
>so is by providing shortcuts.  If \[$@%*&] is a common case, we should 
>provide a shortcut.

I don't think \[$@%*&] is a common case. If it was we would not have 
had prototypes for years and only just "needed it three times" to trigger
its addition.

-- 
Nick Ing-Simmons
http://www.ni-s.u-net.com/


Thread Previous


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