Branden wrote:
>
> Take PHP and Python, for example.
O.k., that's two out of the three modern languages.
That's "most". Sorry, I stand corrected.
> > Silly beginner gotchas. It's not an inconsistency of the
> > language by any means.
>
> Yeah. Beginners. I was one too. And I remember always falling on these...
> But that's OK, since we probably don't want any new Perl programmers...
Well, you proposed adding AWTDI, *and* breaking one of Perl's (few?)
consistencies. Naturally, I oppose both measures.
> > This introduces far more serious problems than it purports to solve.
>
> Tell me one. I couldn't find it.
You named one yourself, but claimed that it would be "worth it"
for some (well, one) programming contexts.
> Wrong! Read again:
O.k. YAWTDI. Just what we need.
> > > Note that `outer $x, $y, $z' is the same as `outer($x, $y, $z)' in
> > > contrast to `outer($x), $y, $z'.
> > Great. You want to break this one very consistent aspect of perl.
>
> print $x, $y, $z;
"my" is a declaration, and it has higher precedence than comma.
I don't see a problem. print() is not comparable.
> > use strict 'vars' + my is already more than sufficient to this need.
>
> Sufficient? Yes.
> The best way? Maybe, maybe not.
> The only way? (So long,) Yes.
>
> I think TSBMTOWTDI.
"...but I hesitate to make ten ways to do it."
Furthermore it is arguable (as we're demonstrating :-) that
the proposed way is any better. Perhaps if perl had no
precedent in this area, it would be something to consider.
As it is, it really isn't, because use strict 'var's + my is
sufficient -- and not only sufficient, but brilliant.
I truly believe this other TWTDI is being proposed -- if you'll
pardon me -- mainly for the sake of grandstanding.
> > > I also see no action at a distance here, since the only way to change
> > > ...
> > > assuming `our' *outside* the block would affect variables inside the
>
> Hey! You are changing the meaning of what I said!!! I didn't write that!
I didn't intend to change the meaning. I was just severely snipping
what didn't need repeating.
> : I also see no action at a distance here, since the only way to change the
> : way a sub sees a variable is inside the sub the variable is being used.
> : That's where I think the discussion about RFC 64 was problematic. It was
> : assuming `our' *outside* the block would affect variables inside the
> : block.
> : And that's AAAD for sure!
>
> I never said `our' should affect the variables inside the block!
Well, I don't know what happened here. All I did was cut out some
lines. I did not (at least not intentionally) twiddle the meaning
of your (or anyone else's) words.
> I'm only asking if it has the ``far more
> serious problems than it purports to solve'' you said it has.
Please go back and read all the threads I referred to in my previous
post. In a nutshell, I agree with the naysayers.
--
John Porter
You can't keep Perl6 Perl5.
