Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading)

[John Porter]

Branden wrote:
> > Changing the semantics of Perl to make it more
> > powerful is something every perl programmer would be happy
> > about.  Consequent changes to the syntax is something we
> > would live with.
> 
> I don't see the semantic change to make it more powerful that is behind 
> changing -> to . and . to ~.
> . . . I still haven't seen the power gain in s/->/./ and s/./~/ 

You miss my point.  I'm trying to show the difference
between what's really important in perl -- its spectacularly
powerful semantics -- and what's not important, its syntax.


> IMHO, Ruby or Python is almost as powerful as Perl, but I never
> learnt them  because of their messy syntax.

I don't know them well enough to say, but I'm pretty confident
that they both lack useful, interesting powerful semantic
features of Perl.  Again, the syntax only plays a supporting
role.  And I'm certainly not arguing in favor of STUPID syntax,
like Pythong's whitespace madness.


-- 
John Porter

It's a sky-blue sky
The satellites are out tonight
let x = x