Are you saying that instead of distinguishing between foo and my foo, the distinction should be between everybody's foo and foo for some spelling of everybody's ?
>----- ------- Original Message ------- ----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sun, 15 May 2005 14:43:00 > >On Mon, 16 May 2005 01:05:28 +0900 >Joel Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The bug/feature is that you can't declare >variables unless you >> declare them either "local" (which is usually not >what you want) or >> "my" (which _is_ what you usually want). The >buggy aspects of this >> feature are mostly relieved by "use strict" and >other pragma. >> >> (Do NOT forget to "use strict" !) > >I am not commenting on any buggy aspects of this >feature, I am >commenting on this feature itself. Use strict >doesn't change the >scoping rules of perl, having to use "my" at all is >the problem, its >backwards and stupid when variables should be >assumed to be lexical >scope. > >> Perl also provides for passing parameters as a >hash instead of an >> array. The good part of that is that if you pass >red, green, and >> blue, you don't have to remember whether red, >green, or blue came >> first in the list. The bad part of this is left >as an exercise for >> the reader. (I'd give an example, but my head is >so full of Java >> these days I couldn't guarantee getting the >syntax right.) > >You don't have to remember the order that args are >passed with normal >languages where functions take named args either. > >> > With perl you can >> > only pass an array as a reference, if you want >a second array you >> > have to copy the one passed as a reference >manually in the sub. >> >> Not exactly true, although getting the hang of >passing arrays can >> take some time. (And reading code that does it >the right way can be >> something of an adventure, especially for >programmers who are mostly >> experienced in descendants of Algol.) > >I'm no perl expert, I'm just going by the perl >documentation here where >it says that you can only pass arrays and hashes as >references. Then >you need to make a new copy of that array or hash >yourself inside the >sub if you don't want to be changing the original >one. I'm not saying >its that big a deal, its just inflexible and a >waste of programmer time. > >> > course, if all you want is an array of args, >languages that let you >> > declare arguments to functions can give you >that just fine. Perl is >> > all about being flexible and saving programmer >time, yet something >> > basic >> > like functions is implimented in an inflexible >way that requires >> > programmers to spend extra time checking args. >Declaring args is >> > both more flexible, and a time saver. >> >> Not true. The problem is not inflexibility, but >once again too much >> flexibity. Of the several ways to solve the >problems of passing >> parameters in perl, the one that is closest to >traditional procedure >> parameter lists is perhaps a bit too spare in its >requirements. > >Yes true, you can handle every arg passing >situation perl is capable of >in a language using named args, as well as >situations perl doesn't >handle without you doing it yourself in the first >couple lines of your >sub. Therefore named args is more flexible, and >saves programmer time. >Notice that perl 6 is supposed to be fixing some of >this stuff, so its >obviously not just me that thinks there's problems >here. > >Adam
