* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/15/2001 17:49]:
>
> Is that autochomp as a keyword or autochomp as an indirect method call
> on $*ARGS?
Who cares? ;-)
> > The thing I worry about is this: I don't think actions should be
> > declared using "is", necessarily.
> >
> > $STDERR is flushed;
> > $var = $ARGS is read;
> > $STDOUT is printed to "Hello, World!\n";
>
> This could be argued 'round and 'round as to what's an action and
> what's a property. 'chomped' and 'flushed' make sense as properties
> as they are descriptive. You're setting a property which the variable
> will take into account in its actions. Whereas things like 'read' and
> 'printed' are immediate actions.
I guess my main problem is the "the 'is' keyword is optional where it
can be inferred" part. That's a whole indirect-object-like can of worms,
and I don't think we should be adding more of those. This could easily
be fixed by writing Damian's example:
$*ARGS prompts("Search? ");
As a past-tense verb:
$*ARGS is prompted("Search? ");
It ends up being the same effective tense. I just really don't think
that "is" should be sometimes-optional.
> Put down the indirect object syntax and step away from the keyboard
> with your hands up! ;)
TMTOWTDI, TMTOWTDI!
-Nate
