On Wed, 9 May 2001 09:47:56 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>> Undecorated if for function calls and methods. And buolt-ins, of course.
>
>No, that's the situation already. David is proposing a change.
>
>> So what you're really saying is that references aren't really scalars,
>> but their own type. Thus they need their own prefix.
>
>No, that does not follow.
What he is proposing is that Perl6 would have a kind of variable that
doesn't have a prefix. That isn't perlish IMO. We might just as well
drop all prefixes. At least, that'd be consistent.
--
Bart.
- what I meant about hungarian notation David L. Nicol
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation David L. Nicol
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Matt Youell
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Bart Lateur
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Bart Lateur
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation David L. Nicol
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Bart Lateur
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Dan Sugalski
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Eric Roode
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Grove
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation David L. Nicol
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Grove
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Matt Youell
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Grove
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Bart Lateur
