On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Darin McBride <dmcbride@cpan.org> wrote: > On Wednesday August 14 2013 4:44:31 PM Brad Baxter wrote: > > > FWIW, I would never use (this incarnation of) postfix dereference. I'm > > sorry, but to my eye $foo->@* is not prettier than @{$foo}. And I > > understand the latter. > > > > That is to say, with the latter, I know exactly where the entity being > > dereferenced begins and ends. With the former--phew--you got me. > > I think this says more about your comfort level than the usefulness, or > lack > thereof, of this functionality. I know a lot of people who would never use > perl 5 syntax because it's no prettier to them than perl 4 syntax, and they > understand the latter. > > To me, the proposed new syntax will take a bit of learning, but will be > hugely > beneficial and make my code both easier to write as well as clearer in > meaning > as the flow will be more natural. > Yes, positively, I'm more comfortable with @{$foo}, and the longer the "$foo" part is, the more comfortable I am. I'm also more comfortable knowing at the start what sort of animal I'm expecting when all the dust settles. I does mean I'll need to learn it, so I'll know it when I see it. The first thing I'll do when I see $foo->{bar}->baz(27, flurg => gnar_now())->[4]->@* is mentally turn it into @{ $foo->{bar}->baz(27, flurg => gnar_now())->[4]} Well maybe not the first thing. :-) I do wish we could do without the trailing asterisk, but I appreciate that the choices are limited. I wish these worked ->[] ->{} ->$ but obviously, wishing won't make it so. BradThread Previous | Thread Next