On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:48:35AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > : @foo = @( a + b ); # element by element add of @a and @b > I expect that's be written: > > @foo := @a + @b; Two different assignment operators? I can understand the intent, but this kind of difficult-to-remember special-casery is the sort of thing that *already* gives Perl a bad press. Think about the question "Does this vastly increase or vastly decrease the program-breaking potential of a mistake made by a novice Perl 6 programmer?" >From a trainer's point of view, having two operators which look very similar, are used for the same thing in various different languages, and do *almost* the same thing but not quite, is completely *asking* for confusion. -- <pudge> i've dreamed in Perl many time, last night i dreamed in Make, and that just sucks.
- Re: Tying & Overloading Larry Wall
- Re: Tying & Overloading John Porter
- Re: Tying & Overloading Dan Sugalski
- Re: Tying & Overloading John Porter
- Re: Tying & Overloading Dan Sugalski
- Re: Tying & Overloading John Porter
- Re: Tying & Overloading Dan Sugalski
- Re: Tying & Overloading Austin Hastings
- Re: Tying & Overloading Glenn Linderman
- Re: Tying & Overloading Larry Wall
- Re: Tying & Overloading Simon Cozens
- Re: Tying & Overloading Larry Wall
- Re: Tying & Overloading John Siracusa
- Re: Tying & Overloading Larry Wall
- Re: Tying & Overloading Larry Wall
- Re: Tying & Overloading Nathan Wiger
- Re: Tying & Overloading Larry Wall
- Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Nathan Wiger
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) John Siracusa
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Branden
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Bart Lateur