On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 09:54:12AM +0000, Simon Cozens wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Storrs) writes: > > Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you think L2R is a bad idea, > > and should not be supported? Or just that it has not yet been > > demonstrated that this is a good idea? > > I think supporting two distinct syntaces, one being a mirror image of > the other, is a bad idea.
I honestly don't understand why not...can you explain it to me? So long as, within any given statement, it is clear which syntax is being used, what's the problem? Perl has always been famous for supporting the kitchen sink and letting you choose which faucet you want to turn on--e.g., we have OO style, imperative style, and a pretty full language built into the regexen. --Dks
