Edward Peschko wrote: > well, for the small fraction of people that use it, they probably are > experienced and know to use parens to disambiguate. No, *everyone* knows to use parens to disambiguate. > And anyways: > my $a, $b, $c = @_; > not working is 'very hard to bugtrack and totally unexpected' for a larger > percentage of perl programmers out there. False. Use strict catches this right away. > How about 'an implicit parens around a set of statements separated by commas > in any context'? This is consistent > > $a, $b, $c = $d, $e, $f; # ($a, $b, $c) = ($d, $e, $f); WHY? WTF does that buy you? It just breaks everything! > And if you say something like: > $a, $b, $c == 10, $d == 11 > you need to disambiguate the sub-statements by saying > $a, $b, ($c ==10), ($d == 11) Oh, that's a terrific improvement. Basically you want to change (= break) the current precedence of the comma operator. Thank you, Mr. Language Designer. -- John Porter Ann wenno haddum billizac...
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Peter Scott
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Simon Cozens
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Piers Cawley
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Peter Scott