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

Re: [perl #23754] Possible bug?; keywords for sub idenifier?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
September 8, 2003 02:15
Re: [perl #23754] Possible bug?; keywords for sub idenifier?
Message ID:
Thanks for clearing that up. It just seemed really odd when I first took
notice of that, giving my background in many over langs like C/C++, Java,
Cobol, PL/SQL, etc. I find it a pretty nifty feature actually :)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brent Dax (via RT)" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 15:24 PM
Subject: RE: [perl #23754] Possible bug?; keywords for sub idenifier?

> (via RT):
> # I just wondering, why does Perl allow you to use supposedly reserved
> words
> # for a sub (function) identifier?
> This is a feature, not a bug.
> Perl allows you to use reserved words as identifiers because there's no
> good reason *not* to.  Remember, you can call a function with an
> ampersand (&), so it's not like there's no way to access a function with
> the same name as a reserved word.
> Moreover, it's good for backwards compatibility.  How many programs had
> functions called lock() before we added threads (and thus locks) to
> Perl?  People weren't forced to rewrite those programs *because* Perl
> allows functions to have the same names as built-ins.
> That's not to say we encourage naming functions after reserved words.  I
> doubt anybody would call that "good style".  But if there's no technical
> reason to stop it, why do so?
> --Brent Dax <>
> Perl and Parrot hacker
> "Yeah, and my underwear is flame-retardant--that doesn't mean I'm gonna
> set myself on fire to prove it."

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About