Re: More Perl hate

[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2003/09/16]

From: Nicholas Clark
Subject: Re: More Perl hate
Date: 15:43 on 16 Sep 2003

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 07:37:58AM -0700, Chris Nandor wrote:
> At 17:57 +0100 2003.09.13, Simon Cozens wrote:
> >The syntax is *exactly the same*, but the effect of "new X::Y" is
> >way different. No DWIM here. Why the hell Larry decided that being
> >like C++, of all God-forsaken languages, was a good idea in this
> >instance is completely beyond me, especially give how much it fucks with
> >the language.
> 
> I am missing something, surely.  In the first example there is no X::Y
> package.  What are you trying to point out here?

That indirect object syntax is worthy of hate.
(I think)

Nicholas Clark

(no message)
- Perl peter (Peter da Silva) 15:36 on 11 Sep 2003
  - Re: Perl Simon Cozens 15:44 on 11 Sep 2003
    - too deep to show
  - sabrina downard 16:03 on 11 Sep 2003
    - too deep to show
  - Juerd 17:24 on 11 Sep 2003
    - too deep to show
  - peter (Peter da Silva) 18:14 on 11 Sep 2003
    - too deep to show
- Chris Nandor 15:15 on 13 Sep 2003
  - peter (Peter da Silva) 15:38 on 13 Sep 2003
    - too deep to show
- Nicholas Clark 15:43 on 16 Sep 2003
  - Chris Nandor 15:46 on 16 Sep 2003
  - Gavin Estey 15:56 on 16 Sep 2003
    - too deep to show
- Greg McCarroll 16:35 on 16 Sep 2003
- Chris Nandor 16:55 on 16 Sep 2003
  - peter (Peter da Silva) 19:03 on 16 Sep 2003
    - too deep to show
- peter (Peter da Silva) 16:28 on 25 Feb 2004
- Simon Cozens 10:32 on 26 Feb 2004

Generated at 14:02 on 01 Jul 2004 by mariachi 0.52