develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from April 2003

Re: [perl #19750] is you or is you ain't an operator?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Casey West
Date:
April 24, 2003 13:28
Subject:
Re: [perl #19750] is you or is you ain't an operator?
Message ID:
20030424203240.GC34510@geeknest.com
It was Thursday, April 24, 2003 when Tim Peoples took the soap box, saying:
: On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 03:48:47PM -0400, Casey West wrote:
: >
: > This ticket is all about the ambiguity with the -X "thingies".
: > Everyone knows them as operators, yet they're documented in
: > L<perlfunc> (and that documentation calls them /operators/).
: > 
: > So if they are operators, the documentation should be moved to
: > L<perlop>.
: > 
: > If functions, terminoligy must be updated in the documentation.
: > 
: > Which is it?
: > 
: >   Casey West
: > 
: 
: 
: Yes but...  if they're moved to L<perlop> then we won't be able to
: type "perldoc -f -X" (which I'm rather fond of doing in a pinch).

While I agree with you whole-heartedly, it's not a very good reason to
keep the documentation in L<perlfunc>.  That is, unless it's really
supposed to /be/ in L<perlfunc>.  :-)


  Casey West

-- 
Shooting yourself in the foot with Unix 
You shoot yourself in the foot 


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