> <snip>
> > sane indentation by making it part of the language, Perl is a
> > language that enforces a dialect of hungarian notation by making
> > its variable decorations an intrinsic part of the language.
>
> But $, @, and % indicate data organization, not type...
Actually they do show "type", though not in a traditional sense.
Organization <-> type is semantic oddery, but they do keep our heds straight
about what's in the variable.
> > What if, instead of cramming everything into "scalar" to the point
> > where it loses its value as "a data type that magically converts
> > between numeric and string, as needed," we undo the Great Perl5
> > Dilution and undecorate references.
>
> Continuing this further, why keep *any* notation at all? Why are vars with
> string or numeric data more worthy of $?
What do you suggest? m_sc_I? (An object member variable that's a scalar
named I.) Bah!
> <snip>
> > We are at the point where there are so many variable types that the
> > dollar sign on their names has become a hollow formality.
>
> Again, I'm confused. All I expect from something with a $ is that it's a
> single value, not necessarily a string or a number. And what if I want to
> treat a string-ifiable object as an untyped value? Is my var then "$
> worthy"?
If all types are references, $ does appear to lose some of its historical
distinction. On the other hand, @foo[1] as a replacement for $foo->[1] does
have some linguistic merit, so I've been listening to it with interest.
My primary concern in this area is the introduction of forced verbosity.
p
