Re: Ideas that need RFCs?

[Steve Fink]

Decklin Foster wrote:
> 
> [replying from here since this is the only way I received it]
> 
> > "Myers, Dirk" wrote:
> > >
> > >         $line/pattern/ ;
> >
> > >         /pattern/ ($line) ;
> 
> I don't think these should be changed. Here's how I tend to pronouce
> things:
> 
>   $x = 'foo';   # "x gets foo"
>   /bar/;        # "match on bar"
>   $x =~ /baz/;  # "x gets matched on baz"
> 
> C<=~> is a special case of "getting" something, where the something in
> question is an action instead of an expression. This symmetry should
> be kept.

Bleckth! You want to preserve it because of a coincidental double
meaning of the English verb "to get"?! $x is not "getting" anything in
that example. By that argument, pretty much every operator should have
an equals sign in it. @$x is "x gets dereferenced". foo() is "foo gets
called".

=~ meaning approximate equality makes some sense to me, but this
doesn't.