On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:56:01PM -0500, Me wrote:
> > Hm, OK. What does this access and using what method ?
> >
> > $foo = '1.2';
> > @bar[$foo];
>
> This is an argument against conflating @ and %.
No it is not.
> It has nothing to do with using [] instead of {}.
Yes it does. I was asking if the above is equivalent to
$bar[$foo] or $bar{$foo} in todays perl.
> > Having different brackets for accessing array or hash
> > actually does help when reading code. Using the same
> > is just adding unnecessary complexity
>
> I can't tell if you mean this as a summary of your
> earlier points, in which case please note response
> above, or a separate point. If it is a separate point,
> you don't say why, so, why?
I mean exactly what it says. Not using [] instead of {}
actually helps with readability.
Graham.
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation <C. Garrett Goebel>
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Larry Wall
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Damian Conway
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Michael G Schwern
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Buddha Buck
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Damian Conway
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation David L. Nicol
