Johan Vromans wrote: > > If a Perl construct does not suffer from a slight change that makes > it easier to accept by new programmers, I think such changes should > be seriously considered. Yes; but the world if full of language [sorry, couldn't resist] which is optimized (or at least meant to be) for the learner; Larry wants Perl to be optimized for the programmer. Unfortunately, to the two optimizations are mostly disjoint. -- John Porter Fortunaut
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs David Grove
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- The binding of "my" (Re: Closures and def... Nathan Wiger
- Re: The binding of "my" (Re: Closures... Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: The binding of "my" (Re: Closures... Branden
- Re: The binding of "my" (Re: Clos... John Porter
- Re: The binding of "my" (Re: Closures... John Porter
- Re: The binding of "my" (Re: Clos... Simon Cozens
- Re: The binding of "my" (Re: ... John Porter
- Re: The binding of "my" ... Johan Vromans
- Re: Closures and default lexic... John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs John Porter