On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Michele Dondi wrote: > On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, John Williams wrote: > > But IMHO the reduction in typing for this relatively minor issue is not > > really worth the surprise to newbies at seeing operandless operators. > > I don't buy that argument as newbies are already exposed to all sorts of > surprises including operandless operators. Including mutating operandless > operators. What is s/// after all? Or is there a good reason for an > asymmetry between different classes of operators?
Well, s/// is a term, for one thing. It is not so much an operator, as it is a subroutine with really strange syntax, and the side-effect of changing the $_ variable. You need to use an operator to get it to affect a different variable. It looks funny no matter how much you squint your eyes. Not that that is a bad thing of course, but I don't think it should be used as an example for operators to follow. ~ John Williams
