>>>>> "w" == wolverian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
w> On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 01:38:27PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote: >> Or use >> >> @a <== 1,2,3; w> I would just like to say that I like this idiom immensely. w> my @foo <== 1, 2, 3; w> reads extremely well to me, especially since I've always disliked the w> usage of '=' as an operator with side effects. (I'm strange like that.) please don't use <== for simple assignments as it will confuse too many newbies and auch. it (and its sister ==>) are for pipelining ops like map/grep and for forcing assignment to the slurpy array arg of funcs (hey, i think i said that correctly! :). = is still fine for basic assignment and everyone will understand it immediately. the only advantage in the above case is the different prececences of = and <== which allows dropping of parens with the latter. i don't consider that so important a win as to be used often. and they are at equal huffman levels as the =() is matched in length by <==. uri -- Uri Guttman ------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- http://www.stemsystems.com --Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding- Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org
