On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 05:31:06PM -0400, Ted Ashton wrote: > But that, precisely, was my point: Arrays *and* hashes. Scalars, hashes, arrays. There's actually more than one type of plural here, gramatically: scalars hashes arrays singular dual plural (Or am I the only one left who did Ancient Greek? :) > (and don't say, "because plural *means* more than one" :-). If having a > filehandle character would make the code clearer, then let's do it. If it would, yes. I'm not convinced that it would. But I do concede that people see filehandles as something conceptually different from an "ordinary" scalar. -- On our campus the UNIX system has proved to be not only an effective software tool, but an agent of technical and social change within the University. - John Lions (U. of NSW)
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-definin... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-defining pun... Simon Cozens
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-definin... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Larry Wall
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... John Porter
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-defining punctuation Steve Simmons