Re: perl

[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/22]

> Ah, you're complaining that Perl already has different syntaxes
> for one way of doing things, whereas you prefer languages that
> let you define your own additional syntaxes for the same way of
> doing things.

Even if that's *all* it was (which it isn't, look up generators some
time) that would still be a huge win... because only the people who
actually needed a different syntax would use it, and when they did
they'd be using a syntax that modelled the structure of the problem they
needed to solve, rather than one of six variants that model the structure
of some problems Larry Wall wanted to solve.

And you wouldn't need to make "foo(bar)+1" and "foo (bar)+1" mean different
things to do it.

• A. Pagaltzis 18:49 on 22 Dec 2006
  • peter (Peter da Silva) 21:58 on 22 Dec 2006

Generated at 22:02 on 27 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52