On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 09:14:13 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>> But @ARGS has one disadvantage: it's a plural form.
>
>You're right, but one problem is that @ARG is already a synonym for @_.
Hey, and shift() works on both by default, depending on where you call
it, toplevel or in a sub. What a coinci
> Renaming is a good idea.
>
> But @ARGS has one disadvantage: it's a plural form.
You're right, but one problem is that @ARG is already a synonym for @_.
We'd either have to break this, or put the command-line args in a
top-level @_. While this would make stuff even more consistent, it would
br
Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> =head1 TITLE
>
> Rename @ARGV to @ARGS
Renaming is a good idea.
But @ARGS has one disadvantage: it's a plural form. Arrays usually
have the singular name of their contents (yes, "ARGument Vector"
manages to break that too); the plural
This one is off-base. Too much history with @ARGV.
I'll be constantly having a typo. This one is anti-"current community".
> "PRL" == Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PRL> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
PRL> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
PRL> =head1 TITLE
PR
On 11 Aug 2000, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> @ARGS is a better choice for several reasons:
>
>1. It's closer to a word and so is faster to read [1]
>
>2. It's easier to explain and remember "Your command-line
> args are contained in @ARGS"
>
>3. When you say "$var = $ARGS[2]"
