On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 08:25:58PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote: : Another facet of this discussion comes into account when also specifying : type. : : from S9: : my bit @bits; : my int @ints; : my num @nums; : my int4 @nybbles; : my str @buffers; : my ref[Array] @ragged2d; : my complex128 @longdoublecomplex; : : Wouldn't this be much better as: : bit @bits; : int @ints; : num @nums; : int4 @nybbles; : str @buffers; : ref[Array] @ragged2d; : complex128 @longdoublecomplex; : : Given that most of the stated reservations had to deal with explicit : declaration better defining scope, what is wrong with drooping the my in : this case?
How 'bout ambiguity with unary ops like "int" and "ref", or any other unaries anyone ever decides to have that might conflict with type names. Plus it's just visually confusing. Making it hard to tell declarations from statements is one of the areas where C made a big mistake, and I am not at all tempted to repeat it. Larry
