On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
: > o.frobme(...) : : How 'bout ..frobme(...)? Or would it be a hell to tell from C<..>? : (Mnemonic reminder: '.'=myself, '..'=my mom - poor analogy, actually!) : : How 'bout a single underscore? _.frobme()?!?
Thought about those in the night, but they don't strike me as visually distinct enough. They just look like someone stepped on the front of your expression.
But then do 'c' and 'o'? They're too identifier-like IMHO to be psychologically associated with something 'special'. It kind of reminds me of some fortran code I saw (I don't know fortran) and I could hardly cope with those 'c'omments...
(However I would be favourable to {one,two} letter(s) long builtin functions/operators, when they are frequently used (think huffmanization) and talking about language design in general.
Michele --
Your right, I didn't think of that at all, but still, who's gonna go into the temp internet folder and create a cookie? At least not most users.
Of course *most* users aren't going to do that. *Most* users aren't trying to hack your site! You don't program securely for *most* users - you program securely for the few users who *are* trying to be malevolent. - Paul Lalli in clpmisc, "Re: free source authentication script"
