Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2013
Re: postfix dereference syntax
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
demerphq
Date:
August 16, 2013 06:21
Subject:
Re: postfix dereference syntax
Message ID:
CANgJU+UBt1i_OVtav2xNvcj_rzPBQ3O4zNQdXArJabi7UbJm4g@mail.gmail.com
On Friday, 16 August 2013, Darin McBride wrote:
> On Thursday August 15 2013 7:04:53 PM demerphq wrote:
> > On 15 August 2013 18:12, Darin McBride <dmcbride@cpan.org <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > > The @{...} syntax forces
> > > me to mentally go back to the beginning (or mentally note what's at the
> > > beginning) just to figure out what's going on.
> >
> > I could turn your argument on its head. When I am assigning I want the
>
> You can, but your point is already moot ;)
>
> $ denotes scalar.
>
> But $foo->bar(baz => 3) ... does not give you a scalar. Well, it might
> not.
> Depends on what's on the LHS of the =, and how the bar method is
> implemented.
> Might be void. Might be a list. Won't be a hash.
>
> > type of return (scalar or list) to be as close to the assignment
> > operator as possible so it is obvious what is being returned from the
> > expression (a list or a scalar). If the @* is at the end of the line,
> > then it is as far as possible from the place I will be looking at.
>
> Yes, and that works for you. However, perl isn't just for you ;)
>
> > Now, you could argue that
> >
> > $foo->@* = (1,2,3,4);
> >
> > puts the @* in the right place, and that
> >
> > @{$foo} = (1,2,3,4);
>
> Nope, I don't argue either one. The way I think is obviously different
> from
> you. You're focused on the sigil. I'm focused on order of operations,
> because I already know the sigil doesn't always tell me what I need to
> know,
> or what I care about. Right now, I treat @{...} or %{...} as exceptions to
> that. And you treat method calls as an exception to the way you think.
> Neither one is right or wrong, both are, I think, valid. It's whatever
> makes
> the syntax "stick" in our brains.
>
> [elided further description of how you think]
>
> > So, now, the $ no longer can be relied to refer to a "scalar", it
> > might be a scalar, it might not.
>
> This is already true.
>
> > This IMO is a real stumbling block for this proposal. It break well
> > established and documented expectations for what seems to be little
> > benefit.
>
> It will break *your* expectations. But we already have that. That you
> don't
> want *another* breakage, that's fair. I happen to desire differently. Not
> that my vote carries much weight, it's simply there.
>
bollocks, it breaks the documented rules for variables, conflating that
with a sub call is nonsense.
yves
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next