Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
> > > > So why not
> > > >
> > > > $object!method("foo", "bar");
> > >
> > > In my opinion, because it doesn't provide sufficient visual
> > > distinction between $object and method(). At a glance, especially on
> > > a crowded page, it's similar in appearance to $objectImethod, for
> > > instance. $object.method() has a visual separator (although I'd
> > > prefer $object->method()).
> > >
> > > How about borrowing from Objective C?
> > >
> > > [$object method("foo", "bar")];
> >
> > How do you create an anonymous list now then? Not that I object to
> > borrowing from Objective C you realise.
>
> I thought ($one, $two, $three) was an anonymous list.
Oops, meant anonymous array.
> Seriously, I hadn't considered that their may be a problem with the
> syntax I gave.
>
> How would you, under Perl5, interpret the expression I used. To me,
> it looks like a syntax error. '$object method("foo","bar")' isn't a
> valid method call, so it can't be a ref to an anonymous list of one
> value.
Hmm... I plead posting late at night.
> Other than severe dependence on the comma, is there any reason why we
> couldn't have the following?
>
>
> $foo = [$one ]; # array ref
> $baz = [$obj,funcall() ]; # array ref
> $quux = [$one,$two,$three]; # array ref
> $bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call
> $bat = [$one $two $three]; # syntax error
Apart from the fact that we're adding one more meaning to [], one
which has no mnemonic relationship with arrays, no reason at all.
--
Piers Cawley
www.iterative-software.com
