Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight

comment on

( #3333=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??
I'd have to look much more closely to make sure nobody sneaks in a "~>" where it shouldn't be.

Sorry, but that is a bit of a crock.

~> versus ->, is certainly no harder to "detect" than . versus ',', (or $l .v. $1, O .v. 0 etc.) and the results can be equally mysterious and damaging.

If your font is unclear, use a proper programming font.

If your eyesight is poor -- as mine is -- use a bigger font.

Just want to note that I don't regard your opinions as wrong, they just differ from mine. I hope I'm doing a half-way decent job at explaining why I hold these views :)

Ditto! (And you have:)

Do you have anything against "?->" visually itself, or do you simply prefer "~>" for being more concise (or something else)?

My eyes/brain have become used over the past 30 years or so to translating -> into points at, without conscious effort.

In the smae way as you can raed tihs snetnce wihtupt dicffiluty dsetite the tpyos, I believe that I will be able to read $ref~>meth( $arg ) equally easily.

However, I think that every time I encountered $ref?->meth( $arg ), that ? is going to stand out like a sore thumb, ring an alarm bell, and throw a brake on my flow.

And given that the vast majority of the time, $ref~>meth( $arg ) will act exactly like $ref->meth( $arg ), that would be giving it a prominence that it simply does deserve or warrant. (IMO:)

Stated the other way, I think that when you need to notice it, ~> is sufficiently different; but when you don't need to notice, it is sufficiently similar to ->, as to not cry wolf in your subconsciousness.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

The start of some sanity?

In reply to Re^7: What operator should perl5porters use for safe dereferencing? by BrowserUk
in thread What operator should perl5porters use for safe dereferencing? by de-merphq

Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":

  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.
  • Log In?

    What's my password?
    Create A New User
    and the web crawler heard nothing...

    How do I use this? | Other CB clients
    Other Users?
    Others cooling their heels in the Monastery: (7)
    As of 2020-11-25 10:11 GMT
    Find Nodes?
      Voting Booth?

      No recent polls found