Adam Turoff wrote:
>
> It has nothing to do with improving the syntax though, because everything
> in use English is a variable that serves as a reference to some other
> variable.
Yes, and that's why I really think it's a waste of time. ;-)
> > I'm not vehemently opposed to "use English"... But I do think,
> >
> > 1. They don't solve the real syntactic problems
>
> No, because the syntactic problems are -s(FH)/2, and that is
> solved by fsize(FH)/2 iff -s is replaced with fsize (or a better
> spelling thereof).
This is one thing that I'm scared most of, and that is having two
alternatives which work only in certain contexts. I'm sure p5p has
already extensively looked at -s(FH)/2 being "wickedly broken" (as I
believe Tom put it), but the solution should theoretically be to make
-s(FH)/2 work.
The consensus has already pretty much said that they want -s et all to
stick around. So if RFC 290's idea is still to replace -X, then I'm very
much against it. But I was under the impression that they're just "use
english" alternatives.
If, however, these alternatives fix bugs that -X can't handle, then
that's not good.
I'll dig through the p5p archives and toke.c to see if any wisdom is
magically imparted on me. ;-)
> > 2. Very few people will ever use them long-term
>
> I dunno. I remember looking at some code that used '-x _' that
> had half a department befuddled. -rwx FH is better, and gets rid
> of the special case bare _ syntax.
Yeah, I've never liked the _ syntax, I've always thought it was weird
(to say the least). I think grouping file tests would be much cleaner.
-Nate
