> Ah, you're complaining that Perl already has different syntaxes > for one way of doing things, whereas you prefer languages that > let you define your own additional syntaxes for the same way of > doing things.
Even if that's *all* it was (which it isn't, look up generators some time) that would still be a huge win... because only the people who actually needed a different syntax would use it, and when they did they'd be using a syntax that modelled the structure of the problem they needed to solve, rather than one of six variants that model the structure of some problems Larry Wall wanted to solve. And you wouldn't need to make "foo(bar)+1" and "foo (bar)+1" mean different things to do it.
