in reply to Re^2: "Indirect" object syntax?
in thread "Indirect" object syntax?

My question was more about whether —from a linguistical point of view— the name "indirect object" was the most accurate.

I figured, although backing up my alternative naming convention (which I'll hardly claim as the "best", or even better than indirect) with reasoning might help another reader realize what's going on behind the scenes when making Perl English readable; that's not always a useful metric as you noted.

The discussion is interesting since many of Perl's constructs can be read in an English-like way (even promoted as options at times, as in use English. On the other hand, I frequently find lines, especially long unbroken ones, hard to read.

Some more musing (or rambling, depending on your opinion) on subject/verb ordering in Perl follows..

I could say do many things now if you are ready and set and prepared ...

do('many', 'things', 'now') if ( $ready and $set and $prepared );

... but I often prefer how the code syntax looks if I reverse the English above and instead state, "if you are ready and set and prepared, do many things now."

if ( $ready and $set and $prepared ) { do('many', 'things', 'now'); }

Indirect object method invocation is almost Yoda-like, in the way the green Jedi might say "go_to_the_lake, Sally does"

go_to_the_lake $Sally;
.. but as above, I think I prefer "Sally, go to the lake", this time both in terms of English appeal and the code implications:


I didn't mean to take away from your linguistic pondering too much (although hopefully another reader can benefit from that.) In any event, thanks for the discussion!