On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 05:31:06PM -0400, Ted Ashton wrote:
> But that, precisely, was my point: Arrays *and* hashes.
Scalars, hashes, arrays. There's actually more than one type of plural here,
gramatically:
scalars hashes arrays
singular dual plural
(Or am I the only one left who did Ancient Greek? :)
> (and don't say, "because plural *means* more than one" :-). If having a
> filehandle character would make the code clearer, then let's do it.
If it would, yes. I'm not convinced that it would. But I do concede that
people see filehandles as something conceptually different from an "ordinary"
scalar.
--
On our campus the UNIX system has proved to be not only an effective software
tool, but an agent of technical and social change within the University.
- John Lions (U. of NSW)
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-definin... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-defining pun... Simon Cozens
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-definin... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Larry Wall
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... John Porter
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-defining punctuation Steve Simmons
