It makes good sense to me -- if we're trying to move a piano from you
to
me then either you can push or your end or I can pull on my end: we're
operating on different ends of it, but the effect in both cases is
moving in one direction.
As a mnemonic for remembering which side push/pull operate on,
Larry Wall writes:
> But pretty much every time I've introduced synonyms into Perl I've
> come to regret it. But hey, if I introduce *different* synonyms this
> time, does that count as making a new mistake?
No! Avoid synonyms. They're initially tempting, because then everybody
gets to pick th
Dan Brian writes:
> Having push and pull operate on opposite ends of an array strikes me
> as more confusing than even shift.
It makes good sense to me -- if we're trying to move a piano from you to
me then either you can push or your end or I can pull on my end: we're
operating on different ends
If there's a willingness to rename shift/unshift, why not consider
going a bit further (and offend shell heritage) to note that pull/put
aren't really linguistically opposed either (unlike push/pull). Why
not
rename pop to pull, and use something like put/take for shift/unshift?
That goes way beyo
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:02:16AM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
> Although I by no means dispute that longest token rule is a long term
> standard in language design, I will claim that many programmers,
> including myself before this, are unaware of it.
Programmers tend to follow the rule even when t
> "RA" == Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RA> Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
>> Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. C is a terrible name; when teaching Perl I feel
>>> embarrassed on introducing it.
>>>
>>
>> C's only virtue, IMHO, is that it's clearly th
Larry Wall wrote:
<>On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 08:55:00PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: $x ==<$foo>; # $x == <$foo>; $x = =<$foo>;
: @x <==<$foo>; # @x <= =<$foo>; @x <== <$foo>;
: $x//=<$foo>; # $x // =<$foo>; $x //= <$foo>;
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; # $x ** [EMAIL PROTECTED]; $x **= @y;
In each of those c
On Thursday, December 2, 2004, 10:08:31 AM, you
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Austin Hastings wrote:
>> How about just having C< system() > return a clever object with .output and
>> .err methods?
> interesting...
> Michele
Prior art of this on Windows...
http:/
Dan Brian writes:
> If there's a willingness to rename shift/unshift, why not consider
> going a bit further (and offend shell heritage) to note that pull/put
> aren't really linguistically opposed either (unlike push/pull). Why not
> rename pop to pull, and use something like put/take for shift
