On Monday 14 May 2007 04:28:15 Thomas Wittek wrote: > > I'm not a friend of potential conflicts between built-in operators and my > > identifier names (and especially the conflicts between scalar, aggregate, > > type, and function names).
> As I partially wrote Moritz, I > a) don't think that it's the case very often. you have to write the > sigil a thousand times where it wouldn't be useful for only 1 case where > you'd have a name conflict. > b) even if there would be a conflict, it might be considered bad style > to use identical identifiers (besides the sigil) for different things > (vars/objects/subs/operators/...). theproblemlinguisticallyspeakingisthatsometimespunctuationishighlyimportant\ fromareadabilitystandpointyoumaynotliketheuseofspacescommasdashesupper\ casinghyphensandperiodsbutitmakesatremendousdifferencetoreadabilitywhether\ youlikeitornotasitmaybebadstyleifyoudontputspacesbetweentwowordsandtheresult\ lookslikeawordthatsomeonemaydefineinthefuture There *are* a few linguists involved in Perl. > So semicolons don't seem to be the best invention since sliced bread. > There should be extra-syntax for the rare cases (multiline) and not for > the common ones. Somehow English seems to get by with periods at the ends of statements, though almost no one pronounces them. > But I don't like doing implicit type casting with operators. > It's even discouraged in Perl5 as we have a warning for that. > So maybe it'd be a good idea to completely drop it. I can't really see that changing DWIM to DWTWM is anything but a step backwards in Perlishness. > >> People not only want code that _is_ sexy, but they also want it to > >> _look_ sexy. > At least almost everyone to whom I said, that I do most work in Perl, > responded with some sentence containing the word "ugly" or "unreadable". > To get away from that image, it's neccessary to do some radical changes > I think. I agree. You need less ignorant colleagues. I'm not sure Perl 6 can fix that. By the way, I'm still waiting to meet your cadre of Dylan hackers. -- c
