Juerd wrote:
What does this have to do with perl6-internals? F-up to p6l.
Sorry! Typing faster than my brain is working. Resent to the right list.
If I have a complicated mathematical expression
If you have anything that is complicated, a verbose version should
always be considered, if only to avoid getting lost in punctuation. This
is not specific to ./foo in any way.
If I'm calling a method on $?SELF five times in a statement and you're
only calling one once, wouldn't such an operator be more important to me
than to you?
I'm not arguing that having a short way to call a method on the current
invocant-- be it operator or keyword-- is a bad thing. It's a great
feature, and why I'm delurking to comment on this. If 'o.' really
doesn't work, it doesn't work. We could pick a different operator. I'm
just saying that the particular choice of './' doesn't work for me (and
evidently a number of other people).
It is visually much more suited for action than functional use:
./foo($bar, $baz); # beautiful
print 5 + ./foo($bar); # ugly
Right here, in my mind, is an argument against it. I'd end up using the
operator in some places and not others, because in some contexts it'd be
"ugly" and others "beautiful". Thus further reducing the visual
consistency of the code. I haven't yet given up on the idea that there's
a shortened operator that would be more universally readable.
at the top of my code if I have to, but I want to make one last gasp at
getting $Larry / @Larry to reconsider this.
I find "o." absolutily horrifying. But then, that's apparently how you
think of "./", so we have to trust Larry's decision on this. I don't
think further discussing this is really fruitful, as it has already been
discussed more than is good for us.
Fair point. I mean no offense, nor do I wish to beat a dead horse. I
just want to make sure it's dead, instead of merely resting.
--
Matt
Matthew Zimmerman
Interdisciplinary Biophysics, University of Virginia
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~mdz4c/
