Nathan Wiger wrote: > I *really* don't want this to turn into a religious argument, Neither do I. > coming from a sh/C background. I understand. I think I was able to learn Perl as quickly as I did because of certain syntactic similarities. But it's not why I program in Perl now, and it's certainly now why I *like* to program in Perl now. > ...closer to other languages with -> vs ., then adding "~" works against > that goal. This is made worse by the fact that *everyone* - Perl hackers > and Java programmers alike - will perceive this as different from all > other languages. It runs directly counter to the original goal: Making > Perl syntax more consistent with other languages. The more I read about this issue, the more I think the string concat operator ought to /[a-z]+/, like the other string ops. -- John Porter
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Russ Allbery
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Bart Lateur
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) nick
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Branden
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) John Porter
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Branden
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) John Porter
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Nathan Wiger
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) John Porter
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) David L. Nicol
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Simon Cozens
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Graham Barr
- Re: Tying & Overloading Damien Neil
- Re: Tying & Overloading Simon Cozens
- Re: Tying & Overloading Bart Lateur
- Re: Tying & Overloading Stephen P. Potter
- Re: Tying & Overloading Dan Sugalski
- Re: Tying & Overloading David L. Nicol
- Re: Tying & Overloading James Mastros