On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 05:58:34PM -0300, Branden wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:04:51AM -0300, Branden wrote:
> > > Why `do FILE' behaves like eval, if there's eval to do it? Isn't this a
> > > little too much not-orthogonal? Why don't we require `eval { do FILE }'
> to
> > > have the behaviour of not dying and setting $@ ?
> >
> > And that would gains us what exactly?
> >
> > As the Perl man page says, do FILE is like
> > scalar eval `cat FILE`;
> > If you take out the eval, you get:
> > scalar `cat FILE`;
> > which is pretty pointless.
> >
> > I find a "let's require some extra hoops and red tape" not very-Perl like.
> > Perl is there for the programmer; not the other way around.
> >
>
>
> Please read ``Larry's talk in Atlanta about Perl 6'', the text is in
> http://dev.perl.org/~ask/als/larry-als.txt, you can find it in
> http://dev.perl.org. Read the fifth paragraph under `[Simplifications]'.
Ah, you mean the paragraph were Larry suggest renaming homonyms?
Requiring to write "eval {do FILE}" were you first wrote "do FILE;"
seems quite opposite to what he says.
Keeping the semantics but making it "include FILE" seems to be more
in the line what he means.
But then, it might be better to wait till Larry has spoken.
Abigail
