At 05:27 PM 2/19/01 +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't want to DWIM this. Would it be so bad to have to type
> >
> > GetOptions (foo => \my ($foo),
> > bar => \my $bar);
>
>If you're really all for maintainability, then surely you mean:
>
> GetOptions (foo => \my ($foo),
> bar => \my ($bar));
>
>otherwise some dumb hacker (eg. You, two weeks later) could come to
>add annother pair of args by sticking C<, baz => \my $baz> into the
>args list...
Yup, yup.
> > tie my ($shoe) => $tring;
> >
> > if we made 'my' consistent with all other functions that take lists
> > (yes-I-know-it's-not-a-function)?
>
>Do you not *care* how ugly you're making something that was once
>compact, expressive and elegant?
Of course I care. I just weighed the advantage (consistency, intuitiveness
in the case of my $a, $b, $c which is far more common than either of the
above) against the disadvantage and decided it was worth it, on
balance. Subscribers to different value systems may have different results.
>And if it's not a function then WTF
>do you want to make it look like one, potentially sowing more
>confusion.
I'd be happy to retract my position if someone would take the thing out of
perlfunc then. I'd really also like to see a more definitive description
than "language construct" at the same time.
--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies
