[DFW.pm] Homework for the list, and for Oct 08 meeting

[Robert Flach]

Funny you should mention that.  I agree completely, and the whitespace 
for defining call syntax makes a lot of sense to me.

In fact, that was what I was expecting and I was quite surprised when 
Perl interpreted it as part of the print.  Loved the %% operator by the 
way, seems like when I'm using modulus, that's the purpose 9 times out 
of 10 (on the other hand usurping bitwise & for anything else is a 
horrible abuse of long-time programmers trust; can't believe perl6 went 
there)

Robert Flach
*Web Tools*
On 9/11/2014 3:05 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:42:16PM -0500, Robert Flach wrote:
>> Yet another way to do it. Interesting.  I would have assumed that
>> the unary + would have caused a numeric contextual evaluation of the
>> contents of the parens, causing the string prints to print zero
>> instead, but it works a charm.  Nice
> Coming from the Perl 6 world, it feels SO WRONG to me that a
> numeric context operator isn't producing a numeric result.  It's
> one of those "OMG special case" exceptions that drive newbie
> Perl 5 programmers nuts, and definitely doesn't follow the
> principle of least astonishment.
>
> So yes, it works, but it's not something I'd encourage or want to
> see in code.  :)
>
> FWIW, Perl 6 avoids this altogether by using whitespace to know
> when parens are part of the subroutine call syntax:
>
>      print(2+3) * 7         # parens belong to "print" call
>      print (2+3) * 7        # parens don't belong to the "print" call
>
> Pm
> _______________________________________________
> Dfw-pm mailing list
> Dfw-pm at pm.org
> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/dfw-pm

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.pm.org/pipermail/dfw-pm/attachments/20140911/f100f3a1/attachment.html>