Larry Wall wrote:
>
> : I _really_ think dot-syntax would make perl prettier as well as make it
> : more acceptable to the world of javacsharpbasic droids. Which is some
> : kind of goal, no?
>
> Consider it a given that we'll be using . for dereferencing. (Possibly
> with -> as a synonym, just for Dan. :-)
<snip>
> + is out because it will add numbers.
FWIW, if we're going to go "all the way" and make Perl's objects .-based
(which I personally dread, but oh well), then we should adopt the "+"
for string concat as well. Yes, I know that string concat isn't
commutative and all the other stuff, but who cares? Sometimes taking
what other languages do just because it's widely used is worthwhile. I
personally don't know of any other language that uses "~" for string
concat. Does anyone else?
Besides, if everything's an object and you have a vtable/whatever PLUS
method, then why shouldn't:
print "The next loop will be " + $i + 1 + "\n";
DWIM?
As a segue for a second, we should keep in mind which types of people
we're trying to satisfy. I personally don't care at all if Perl 6 is
more popular with Java and C# people than Perl 5. But I definitely don't
want it to be less popular with Perl folks (like me). With the proposed
changes in this thread so far, you've got:
P5 P6
------- -------
-> .
. ~
For no net gain. I know we're just brainstorming still, but -> is not an
oddity to Perl. There are other languages (like C) that use this. And
personally I think Perl is far more effective as a C-sh/cgi glue than a
Java-.Net glue. The latter space is already populated w/ Java and C#,
and Sun and MS have a little bit of marketing cash.
Just my own personal feelings. I don't want Perl 6 to be a complete
disregard for Perl 5, but rather an improvement over it (RFC 28, you
know...).
-Nate
