Re: RFC 33 (v2) Eliminate bareword filehandles.

[Buddha Buck]

At 12:50 PM 9/6/00 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>I see barewords as being whatever the programmer wants them to be,
>as long as he makes it clear what he expects the word to be before using
>it.
>
>So, C<open> becomes a legacy constructor and the perl6 version of it would
>be something like
>
>
>         my filehandle fh; fh->new(">>/tmp/appendablelog");

Ugh...  How about...

my filehandle fh;
fh->open(">>/tmp/appendablelog");

or (using indirect object notation)

my filehandle fh;
open fh (">>/tmp/appendablelog");

or even

open my filehandle fh (">>/tmp/appendablelog");

>with or without fh being syntactically singular, fh will from here to the
>end of the enclosing block be seen as a filehandle if that makes sense in 
>context.

What advantage does this give over:

open my filehandle $fh (">>/tmp/appendablelog");

besides the saving on one key stroke?

>If it doesn't make sense, meanings from other contexts will be attempted 
>before
>autovivification or error.
>
>--
>                           David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>        perl -e'@w=<>;for(;;){sleep print[rand@w]}' /usr/dict/words