[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2003/09/16]
At 10:33 -0500 2003.09.16, Peter da Silva wrote: >> That's a cute little thing for you to say, but if you have problems reading >> the day-to-day Perl code that I write, no, you don't know Perl. > >You seem to be taking this way too bloody personally, because I'm >trying to figure out where I said I had problems reading your code. I'm not; I keep saying that well-written Perl code is not difficult. You keep saying Perl is inherently difficult. I am sorry you are not able to understand. >> What, specifically, is the problem? > >Foreach, actually. In foreach, but not in any other context, if >you change the temporary variable containing an element of an array >you actually change the array. Yes, this is well-documented, and used by just about everyone. There's nothing obscure or overcomplex about it. Awkward is, again, in the eye of the beholder. >In English, it doesn't prevent communication if the rules are >irregular. If I say "viri" or "virus" you understand what I mean. >If you don't, you can ask me. You don't freak out if I say "verbing >weirds language" or "you from context that can glork", and you >hardly slow down for "You can eevn siwcth ltetrs ardoun and teh >minneag siltl coems trohugh". No, most of those cause significant problems for me. Sorry to mess up your point. :) "verbing weirds language" does not cause problems for me only because I have seen it before, and because it is a joke. >I understand why it does that. It makes it linguistically rich and >interesting. Like English. > >The problem is, English is a completely insane thing to model a >programming language on. Your argument boils down to "I don't like working this way," but you state your argument as "Perl was designed poorly." That's my only real problem with what you are saying: it's dishonest. >Well, you know, a computer program is one of those things that HAS >TO BE UNAMBIGUOUS. And, you know, my Perl code *is* unambiguous, as unambiguous as any other language. Perl gives you rope, and the good programmer -- in a significant program -- only uses it when necessary. >> Riiiiight, it is a major problem that the code doesn't handle a >> construct almost no one ever uses ... > >I think you have cause and effect backwards here. No, I mean almost no one ever uses ?...? regexes in general, not just in Switch code. I can't recall ever seeing it except in examples. So that Switch does not support this construct is almost entirely insignificant, except as a curiosity. -- Chris Nandor pudge@xxxxx.xxx http://pudge.net/ Open Source Development Network pudge@xxxx.xxx http://osdn.com/
Generated at 14:02 on 01 Jul 2004 by mariachi 0.52