Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2009
2009/8/23 Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@gmx.de>: > * David Golden <xdaveg@gmail.com> [2009-08-21 13:40]: >> If I had to sum up my view, I want -OReadability. I appreciate >> that you've worked through the semantics for LHS and RHS, but >> I think the syntactic direction is wrong for Perl 5. (E.g. I'd >> like to combat the "line noise" meme, not fuel it.) > > Fully agreed. > > I feel this is too Perl 6ish. > > Perl 6 is non-flattening by default and offers the splat for > explicit flattening; Perl 5 is flattening by default and offers > the reference backslash for explicit preservation. Arguably, this > denies control of various kinds to the user, so explicit > flattening turns out to be a better overall idea. > > But it cannot be retroduced to Perl 5 without a significant hit > to the conceptual coherence of the language. Let’s not try to mix > the two. It’s a good idea to take cues from the conceptual work > in Perl 6, Perl 5 has too much baggage to water it down further > by porting over the semantics along with the concepts. Let’s try > to transliterate the Perl 6 concepts into the existing Perl 5 > semantics instead. I agree too. I notice that non-flattening behaviour is marked in Perl 5 by a keyword (my, local, our): it would be more visually consistent to use a keyword for binding as well, instead of ":()".Thread Previous | Thread Next