Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2010
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Brad Baxter <bmb@mail.libs.uga.edu> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> wrote: >> >> It's unfortunate that a language has all kinds of >> >> @ >> $ >> % >> ' <as an old style package level var accessor, before the days of "::"> > > Excuse me -- "unfortunate"? If you really think that, then I > might suggest that you aren't the person I would want to be > rewriting Perl's documentation. It bothers me that this came out harsher than I intended. What I meant was that it sounds like you don't *like* Perl (when the fact that you're volunteering would imply otherwise), since its sigils (@, $, %, etc.) are to my mind one of its signature beauties. I wouldn't like to see the documentation making apologies for them. On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote: > Can we just move forward with changes to which there are not very loud > objections? For example, I bet almost everyone will favor using three-arg open > except when documenting two-arg open. Maybe there will be a general consensus > that "for my $x" is better than "for $x" and that can be updated as well. > Having a mostly-consistent bracing and indenting style also seems like a good > win. +1 -- BradThread Previous | Thread Next