Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

[Matt Youell]

> > But $, @, and % indicate data organization, not type...
>
> Actually they do show "type", though not in a traditional sense.
> Organization <-> type is semantic oddery, but they do keep our heds
straight
> about what's in the variable.

Sure. But my point was that Perl's use of $ isn't Hungarian notation.
Otherwise (as has already been noted), we'd need line noise for each data
type. This is the crisis that David N sees... I'm questioning whether there
is such a crisis.

> > Continuing this further, why keep *any* notation at all? Why are vars
with
> > string or numeric data more worthy of $?
>
> What do you suggest? m_sc_I? (An object member variable that's a scalar
> named I.) Bah!

Actually, you can do that now. I've seen $m_I. Of course, that was from a
C++ guy that was just learning Perl.

I abhor Hungarian notation. It's the dark side of Lazy. And chances are that
if you actually *need* it, your code needs some serious factoring, IMHO.

> My primary concern in this area is the introduction of forced verbosity.

Typing is good for you. It builds strong bodies 8 ways.

- Matt