On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 01:53 +0100, Rob Dixon wrote: > Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 22:55 +0200, Paul Johnson wrote: > >>> > >>> Inside a sub, shift without a parameter will shift @_. Outside a sub, > >>> it will shift @ARGV. Since it does two different things in different > >>> context, always give it a parameter. Things that do different things > >>> should look different. > >> > >> No. > >> > >> Or, more charitably, your first two sentences are (mostly) correct but I > >> think you might find yourself fighting a losing battle with the last > >> two, both philosophically and with your specific suggestion. > > > > "Real Perl Programmers prefer things to be visually distinct." > > Larry Wall > > > > I wasn't the first to have the idea. > > I can't find anywhere where that is quoted in context. Considering the amount > of > effort that has gone into making Perl do what is meant when the code is > ambiguous I very much doubt if he meant what you mean. If he had thought it > was > a bad idea to call shift with an implicit parameter then I don't think he > would > have designed the language so that you could.
So you think there are no problems in Perl's design and Perl 6 is a waste of time? Have implicit parameters is not necessarily a bad thing. But having two different behaviours is. -- Just my 0.00000002 million dollars worth, Shawn Linux is obsolete. -- Andrew Tanenbaum -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://learn.perl.org/
