> Ah, but I think the mnemonic value of the '.' more than earns its keep > here. C<our $foo is private> is doing a slightly different job > anyway. And instance variables are *not* the same as 'normal' > variables, they hang off a different symbol table (or syte, to use > Damian's oh so clever term from Perl 5+i) and I'm all for things that > are different *looking* different. >
Well, I certainly don't like the aesthetic value of them. They are ugly as Perl 4. But, I have been caught in C++ making all my private variables _named _like _this, so I suppose it's analogous. But I don't like being forced to do it that way. What if you just want a simple struct-like thing? That's when it becomes really ugly and dislikable. Erm... wait a minute, how would you do that? $foo = new Foo; $foo..instancevar = 7; I doubt that's it. $foo.instancevar = 7; And that's unclear, if we refer to it as $.instancevar inside the function. Or, actually, I do think it's clear. Wow, I was arguing my point and I came to like the syntax. Hmm.... Ok, take your once-ugly syntax and run with it! I understand it now. Luke
