On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 12:48 PM, Dave Storrs wrote:
> > for @a; @b -> $x is rw; $y { $x = $y[5] };
>
> I agree that it's an eyeful. How many of your issues could be solved
> if the above were just written:
>
> for (@a;@b) -> ($x is rw; $y) { $x = $y[5] };
>
> Would that suffice to make it clearer?
Actually, yes, that would solve everything for me...and I knew
this was valid syntax. However, (A) the fact that Larry went to some
fairly serious lengths to eliminate the need for parens everywhere he
could says to me that we should find a system that doesn't require them
and (B) since it CAN be written in the 'eyeful' way (*) it WILL be written
in that way...and I and others are going to have to maintain code that
uses that and, as I said, I think it's going to lead to a lot of bugs.
Maybe I'm the only one who is bothered by this...if so, I'll cope and
deal.
--Dks
