[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Cozens) wrote on 26.03.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Oh, and you think Perl is more English than German?
In fact, I've come up with the same idea independently. Except I'd go a
bit further and claim that only a native English speaker could possibly
come up with the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) wrote on 15.08.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The ultimate target of a program's source code is the *programmer*.
True.
> Programmers, being people (well, more or less... :), work best with symbols
> and rich context.
This particular programmer *hates* what Per
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Wiger) wrote on 15.08.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I'd say, if the variable exists, interpolate it. If not, print it as
> > it stands.
>
> I initially was thinking this too, but there's a major problem:
>
>print "Your stuff is: @stuff\n";
>
> I want this to *alw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) wrote on 15.08.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You're right, there should be just one date/time routine. But it is
> *extremely* difficult to incorporate time zones in a portable fashion.
> They change at legislative whim. But if utcdate() (or whatever we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Russ Allbery) wrote on 15.08.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > All variables should be C<$x>. They should behave appropriately
> > according to their object types and methods.
>
> No thanks. I frequently use variables $foo, @foo, and %foo at the same
> time when they contain th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Torkington) wrote on 15.08.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * you misunderstand the purpose of $ and @, which is to indicate
>singular vs plural.
Yes. That's one of the things that's wrong with it - maybe the biggest of
all.
It's one of the things that require con
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Torkington) wrote on 15.08.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Stephen P. Potter writes:
> > Why is it silly? Hashes and arrays are *conceptually* very similar
> > (even if they are extremely different implementation-wise).
>
> If that were the case, I think students would h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) wrote on 15.08.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> At 06:04 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > >Generality good.
> > >
> > > For many things, yes. For computers, say. For people, no. Generality
> > > bad. Specificity and specialization go
