On Sun, 2002-04-21 at 10:59, Trey Harris wrote:
> 0 has true
>
> my first reaction would be, "huh? Since when?"
Dare I say... "now"? ;-)
Sorry, someone had to say it.
Personally, even though it sucks up namespace, I think what we're seeing
here is a need for more than one keyword that are synonyms. "but" and
"now" seem to cover a good deal of ground.
0 now true
Is misleading, IMHO, as 0 is not now true. 0, in this context is an
expression, and we're saying that that expression is now true. "but"
conveys this much more clearly. However, as many have pointed out, there
are a number of cases where but is equally misleading.
Is there any problem with allowing both but and now? It might even be
elegant to use both at the same time:
$x now integer but true
which is clearer to my eye than
$x now integer now true
which seems to change the properties of $x twice without reconciling the
changes with each other.
In any other language this would be unthinkable, but I think it fits
nicely with Perl's philosophy. Not TMTOWTDI, which I think is often used
to excuse the inexcusable, but the idea that Perl reflects the ways in
which humans use language. We want to convey shades of meaning that do
not translate directly to action.
So, have I just lost it, or would it make sense to have now and but?
Apologies to the person who started this thread. I know you thought
"has" was ideal, and I understand why. It's just that between "but" and
"now", I think you get more ground covered than you do with "has" and
either one.
