in reply to Re: "Indirect" object syntax?
in thread "Indirect" object syntax?
Apero, although I do thank you for chiming in and demonstrating why using the thing called "indirect object syntax" isn't a good idea, my question wasn't about that. I am (almost) fully aware of the drawbacks of the syntax. My question was more about whether —from a linguistical point of view— the name "indirect object" was the most accurate.
Again, I'd like to use the kick $ball; # i.e. $ball->kick example, where $ball obviously is a direct object and not an indirect object.
But Athanasius nicely quoted the friendly manual and made me realize that, although Perl does resemble English, Perl simply isn't English.
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^3: "Indirect" object syntax?
by Apero (Scribe) on Nov 24, 2015 at 01:35 UTC | |
by muba (Priest) on Nov 24, 2015 at 02:20 UTC |
In Section
Meditations