On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:48:40 +0200, Luca Ferrari wrote:
> I read both the book and the exegenis, it is only that it requires me to
> think about the correct usage of sigils because it is not as much
> intuitive for me as it is in v5.
> I was just trying to explain to my brain why having immutable s
From: Andy Bach
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Shawn H Corey wrote:
There is also a third group who want to get rid of sigils entirely. ;)
Ahhh! Blasphemy, Blasphemer! That way lies chaos! Dogs and cats, living
together! NEVER!
... And I was going to add that there is a four
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Andy Bach wrote:
> Did you read the exegesis? Damian is one of the smartest guys you'll ever
> hear speak (his book "Perl Best Practices", for one, is worth it's weight in
> classrooms - er, something like that). It's not that you're wrong or that
> the argument
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Shawn H Corey wrote:
>
> There is also a third group who want to get rid of sigils entirely. ;)
>
Ahhh! Blasphemy, Blasphemer! That way lies chaos! Dogs and cats, living
together! NEVER!
Er, sorry. As the exegesis are deprecated (though still worth the reads
jus
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:27:24 -0500
Andy Bach wrote:
> Did you read the exegesis? Damian is one of the smartest guys you'll
> ever hear speak (his book "Perl Best Practices", for one, is worth
> it's weight in classrooms - er, something like that).
Perl::Critic and its script, perlcritic, follow
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Luca Ferrari wrote:
> What I don't understand here is why we have to keep the true
> sigil for any access.
>
Did you read the exegesis? Damian is one of the smartest guys you'll ever
hear speak (his book "Perl Best Practices", for one, is worth it's weight
in cla
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Andy Bach wrote:
> I liked it, after I
> understood it.
I posted the question for the same reason: I believe that having the
sigil meaning what you (are thinking) you are accessing was a great
idea. What I don't understand here is why we have to keep the true
sig
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Luca Ferrari wrote:
>
It's just one of those things. When Perl was invented, Larry Wall liked the
idea of make the sigil mean something and mutate when the access did. Most
other languages (that had sigils) didn't do that. Some people said
"genius" some people we
Hi all,
I'm having a look at Perl 6 syntax and I don't get the rationale in
having different sigils for scalars, hashes and arrays while having a
scalar access being with the same type sigil. In other words, in Perl
5 it does make sense (to me) that accessing a single value into a list
or hash has
