Damian Conway skribis 2006-04-30 9:49 (+1000):
> This would make the enormous semantic difference between:
> foo. :bar()
> and:
> foo :bar()
And how is that very different from the enormous semantic difference
between:
foo. .bar()
and:
foo .bar()
that already exists?
I understand your point, and tend to agree with it, but it counts for
both ".:" AND ". .".
> PS: While I can understand the appeal to laziness, I'm not at all convinced
> by the argument:
> > And it's a lot of work (many, many keystrokes!)
> > to go back and change something.
> In vim, the exact number of keystrokes to realign the long dots of
> N lines is 7+N.
If you plan it, sure. But without planning, you easily get to 12 and
more. It's not just about the number of keystrokes, though. Having to go
back itself is awkward.
> We need to be careful not to require the language to solve
> problems that are better solved with tools.
I think we should be careful, and are careful, to support lots of tools.
Many programmers prefer simple editors. Many programmers who use
advanced editors, like to keep them at the default settings.
And whenever you have to create a macro to do something that's common in
a certain programming language, that programming language was badly
designed. Let's not let Perl 6 be such a language.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
