[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On 4/23/01 3:25 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
: > : >From a trainer's point of view, having two operators which look very
: > similar, : are used for the same thing in various different languages, and do
: > *almost* : the same thing but not quite, is completely *asking* for confusion.
: >
: > So teach 'em :=, and outlaw = with some kind of stricture. That'll
: > save a heap of newbie confusion with == too. The = would only be there
: > for compatibility anyway, when you want an old-fashioned Perl
: > assignment that attempts to dwim the list/scalar context.
:
: Then why not use = to do what you want := to do, and make := do what the
: Perl 5 = does? Poor, confused Perl 5 programmers, I know. But if the ":=
: functionality" is the common case for Perl 6, why make everyone type := all
: over the place when they could be typing = ?
Don't think I'm not tempted. But I'm not sure if people will take to
@foo = @bar;
no longer implying list context by default.
: > And I don't care if it looks like Pascal, so don't try that argument. :-)
:
: I'm just trying to save a (chorded!) keystroke in every assignment... :)
Now that's a good argument. :-)
Larry
