Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> "David L. Nicol" wrote:
> >
> > s/x/5/; # this is still going to replace
> > # all the eckses in $_ with fives.
>
> Why? This is an arbitrary decision if you've declared variables to be
> barewords.
Misstating my position, when I take one, is and will continue to be
a way to get a rise out of me. This may be a character flaw on my part.
Introspection is digression.
Regexes, unless set otherwise, interpolate
like double-quotes. Double-quotes explicitly recognizes $ to mean that
a variable starts here. A bareword inside doublequotes is not interpreted,
in Perl or C.
> Anyways, I'm done harping on this issue. I think a single, simple syntax
> is good. You and I will have to agree to disagree on this point.
I don't mind agreeing to disagree, but I won't do it until you can
correctly state my position, which you haven't done yet.
>From my point of view it appears that you are confusing me with one of the
people (whose names I would have to look up to list) who want to remove
leading $ and @ from variables. I am not in their camp. I agree with you
that those are not workable proposals.
I do not say variables are barewords, I say that barewords may, in addition
to being function calls, be variables. Which is a behavior we can, in fact,
finess out of later versions of perl five that allow subroutines to return l-values,
although doing so requires an explicit declare($$) method, which would take its
arguments as barewords and set up the accessing method and add it to the symbol table.
sub Declare($$){
my ($type, $name) = @_;
my $atman; # a universal virtual base class
$Declared::VarRef{$name} = \$atman;
$Declared::VarType{$name} = $type;
eval <<ENDEVAL;
sub $name : lvalue { return \$\$Declared::VarRef{$name} };
ENDEVAL
};
And there it is, a bareword that quacks like a variable.
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
perl -e'@w=<>;for(;;){sleep print[rand@w]}' /usr/dict/words
