On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 06:21:43PM +0000, Simon Cozens wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mr. Nobody) writes: > > I have to wonder how many people actually like this syntax, and how many only > > say they do because it's Damian Conway who proposed it. And map/grep aren't > > "specialized syntax", you could do the same thing with a sub with a prototype > > of (&block, *@list). > > Well, I'll go record and say I think it's Bloody Silly. It's over-cutesy, > adding syntax for the sake of syntax, doesn't do anything for the readability > of code, and doesn't really actually gain very much anyway.
That I will agree with to some extent. But mainly because I think that IF a pipe-like syntax is added then it should do just that, pipe. What has been proposed is not a pipe, unless each part gets converted to a co-routine and its arguments are really an interator that calls the previous stage to get the next argument. > But even so I dare say it'll go in because Damian likes it. That statement I dont agree with. Yes Larry has put a lot of trust in Damian, but that has not resulted in Damian always getting what he wants, just most of the time :-) Graham.
