Re^2: question about: my $a AND sort {$a <=> $b} keys %hash

[Your Mother]

How would you correct the design "flaw"? Don't be vague. Explain why your design would be better than a minor caveat and could have survived the evolution of Perl 1...5 and introduction of lexicals.

Four? Maybe eight lines of code to answer the second point. 30 years of professional programming…

[Anonymous Monk]

I love Perl, but the lack of lexical scoping in the original design was a huge gaping design flaw that left a bunch of smaller flaws in its wake.

(not the other anon)

[Your Mother]

I understand in retrospect that's an easy conclusion and not wrong per se. The idea though, design process to forward think everything, is why Perl 6 has taken a decade and half and several design redrafts. The design process Larry used shipped a language immediately and for all its often cited warts is still, for me, easily the best high level language. There likely would be no surviving Perl at all today if Larry had undertaken lexical scope off the blocks.

[Anonymous Monk]

Flawlessness may not be possible or even desirable, but a flaw is still a flaw.