David L. Nicol wrote:
>
> I am not suggesting dropping the magic signifiers from the beginning of
> Perl scalars and containers. In fact, I resent these insinuations
> (first Nathan's, now yours) that I am among those who suggest dropping the
> decorations from perl scalars. I am not among that
John Porter wrote:
> undecorated variable names suffer from this showstopping weakness:
> they can't be interpolated. Unless we change other aspects of perl's
> syntax to support it, that is -- maybe s/${x}/5/. Now, maybe we can
> live without variable interpolation; but I'd bet most perl progr
John Porter wrote:
>
> David L. Nicol wrote:
> >
> > A bareword inside doublequotes is not interpreted, in Perl or C.
>
> No; a "bareword" in quotes (any kind) is not a bareword.
>
> --
> John Porter
huh?
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David L. Nicol wrote:
>
> A bareword inside doublequotes is not interpreted, in Perl or C.
No; a "bareword" in quotes (any kind) is not a bareword.
--
John Porter
Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> "David L. Nicol" wrote:
> >
> > s/x/5/; # this is still going to replace
> > # all the eckses in $_ with fives.
>
> Why? This is an arbitrary decision if you've declared variables to be
> barewords.
Misstating my position, when I take one, is and
