In a message dated Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Juerd writes: > Except for the shocking number of closed-minded people on this list.
Stop it, stop it, STOP IT. I'm not asking you to stop voicing your opinion about the discussion at hand--that would be closed-minded, after all. I'm asking you to stop interpreting disagreement as censorship, prejudice, closed-mindedness, or whatever else. It's not. In any case, the argument in re 'what operator to access keywordishly-keyed hashes' is spinning out of control and not getting anywhere. This is precisely why we leave it to Larry (and @Larry) to exercise his benevolent dictatorship. Open issues in regards to what to do with qx() (I'll post my thoughts on that a bit later) and discussion thereof, or on a truly new syntax (other than the ones proposed by Larry and Juerd or a return to Perl 5 ambiguity) or some other brilliant unification in regards to hash keys would I think still be welcomed here. But the argument back and forth--which is prettier, which takes more keystrokes, what's a keystroke, isn't it too much like some-other-language-we-don't-like, no it's more like yet-another-language-we-do-like, etc. ad nauseam is just petty bickering at this point. Can we all just take a deep breath here and let the issue be resolved as time fulfills? No progress is being made at this point. Let it rest. (No, Juerd, I'm not being closed-minded or censoring you. This equally applies to everyone who just wants to restate some new wrinkle of a point already discussed to death.) Trey -- Trey Harris Vice President SAGE -- The System Administrators Guild (www.sage.org) Opinions above are not necessarily those of SAGE.
