I feel a "me too" post is in order.
I've written code that is 2-3 levels of nested given/when in a
method of an object that wasn't the topic.
I did not feel confused at all, juggling .foo and ./foo, which are
visually distinct, and different to type. They convey a big
difference of meaning, even if it's only 1 char apart.
I think a solution to the problem of being able to use those two
well, is not a solution, because there isn't a problem.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:59:22 +0200, Juerd wrote:
> Larry Wall skribis 2005-07-11 18:29 (-0700):
> > is that we simply outlaw .foo notation at *compile* time in those
> > scopes where we know (at compile time) that $_ and $?SELF diverge.
> > In such a scope you *must* specify $_ or $?SELF (or equivalent).
>
> What?
>
> That makes having a default at all useless, it makes moving code without
> breaking it impossible again, it requires a lot of extra typing with
> shifted keys, it adds an arbitrary looking exception, and it is wildly
> undwimmy and impractical, and thus unperlish by every definition I know.
>
> This is, by far, the silliest solution for this problem that I have seen
> proposed, because it is a combination of almost all the cons, and comes
> at a time in which all the pros and cons of other solutions are already
> known and discussed.
>
> > That's the default, and I'm not changing my mind ever again, at least
> > till next week.
>
> I can wait till next week.
>
> > use self "this";
> > use self "self";
> > use self "o";
> > use self "./";
> > use self "";
>
> Any of these must be the default, and frankly I do not care much which
> one it is, if that means the current non-solution goes away.
>
> Obviously, use self "" is the least attractive of these, but I would
> still prefer it to outlawing .foo.
>
> If the default isn't sane, the language isn't sane. That there is a
> pragma to change things, should never be a reason to stop picking good
> defaults.
>
> > Yes, this is possibly a hazard for cut-n-pasters. But then,
> > you weren't supposed to be cutting-n-pasting anymore, were you?
>
> No, but I do refactor. I do add loops and methods around existing code.
> I do use for (or given in p6) to topicalize, to be able to type LESS.
>
> In Perl 5, I really hate
>
> for ($object) {
> $_->method(...);
> $_->method(...);
> $_->method(...);
> }
>
> And the Perl 6 equivalent until your revelation,
>
> given $object {
> .method(...);
> .method(...);
> .method(...);
> }
>
> was the perfect solution. Killing off a useful and much used idiom even
> before the first release is quite an accomplishment.
>
> Disallowing .method here means a huge step back in time. Back to
> $_.method or $object.method.
>
>
> Juerd
> --
> http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
> http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
> http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
--
() Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0xEBD27418 perl hacker &
/\ kung foo master: uhm, no, I think I'll sit this one out..: neeyah!
pgpL6XkyQ00ZQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
