On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:37:53 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>> $string3 = $string1 . $string2;
>> $string3 = "$string1" + "$string2";
>
>That's now *five* characters required to perform a very common operation.
>
>Rather than one.
I'm really beginning to like
$string3 = $string1 _ $string2;
The underscore indeed "connects" the two strings.
But: as somebody else wrote: why on earth do we need to reserve the dot
for OO? Why do we have to be compatible with everybody else in the
world? Because we're not, anyway.
Recently, there was a question about polymorphism in Perl. This person
did not understand that it is possible that you can use the same method
for two different classes, without them having a common superclass. It's
perfectly possible in Perl (because method resolving actually is a form
of symbolic dereferencing... heheh...), but most definitely not in most
other OO languages.
So, perl is different anyway. What does one tiny extra superficial
difference of notation FGS make any difference. I think backward
compatibility with Perl5 is far more important, than having the
*appearance* of doing the same as other OO languages.
--
Bart.
