Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
The stupid question is the question not asked
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: what would you like to see in perl5.12?

by blazar (Canon)
on Aug 20, 2007 at 22:02 UTC ( #633954=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: what would you like to see in perl5.12?
in thread what would you like to see in perl5.12?

I couldn't come up with any case where ->do{ was ambiguous. It's currently a syntax error.

I hadn't considered the curlies: I had seen them but kinda not really noticed them. (It's been a terribly hard day.) If I take the curlies into account I get a very "unorthogonal" deviation from all the rest of Perl syntax I can think of. A bareword, with curlies next to it. And should whitespace be allowed between them? Or is do{ to be thought of as a single glyph? Anyway you think of it, it's very ugly.


Comment on Re^3: what would you like to see in perl5.12?
Download Code
Re^4: what would you like to see in perl5.12?
by ysth (Canon) on Aug 21, 2007 at 01:00 UTC
    No, not a single glyph. Just a straightforward use of do BLOCK where it's not currently allowed.
      But then you have a bare arrow on the left. Let me see, you have a situation like:
      $foo -> THINGIE

      where THINGIE happens to be do BLOCK.

      With current syntax THINGIE can be:

      • a sub, array or hash dereferencing: (...), [...] and {...} respectively;
      • a bareword, interpreted like a method, with or without a pair of parens to pass parameters, if any: the latter, if present conveys a strong psychological feeling of being linked with the method itself as if they were a single thing;
      • a simple scalar value, to be interpreted as a symref (if not under strict) or a subref to be called like a method.

      All these thingies are "boxed", while yours look like the juxtaposition of two other thingies, with no surrounding box. It simply doesn't fit well, and is aesthetically unappealing.

      Granted, ->${\EXPR} looks awful, but it is an awful use of the existing syntax, which does not permit a more beautiful form. Your proposal makes for ugly syntax to start with: in all earnestness, looking at it from a distance it looks cleaner. But as you close up, you get an unsatisfactory feeling. Of course I would like to say that I have a much more beautiful proposal of my own, but no, I can't devise any...

      Update: striked out text above thanks to a /msg by ysth - "a simple scalar can always be a coderef or a method name (either qualified or not); the latter is unaffected by strict".

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://633954]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others making s'mores by the fire in the courtyard of the Monastery: (9)
As of 2014-08-21 22:06 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The best computer themed movie is:











    Results (144 votes), past polls