introspection (and Perl 6)
aaron.trevena at gmail.com
Thu Jan 24 10:33:57 GMT 2008
On 23/01/2008, chromatic <chromatic at wgz.org> wrote:
> I'm not sure that "Operators I've never seen before make my eyes hurt and
> there's no way I'll ever use them ever and you'd be crazy to use them
> yourself" is really the way to start a reasoned discussion.
My complaint was that it was a single symbol operator in the place
where I expected a class or method to be.
I don't think that's un unreasonable obstacle to understanding perl 6
(which I've been looking at, adding stuff to the wiki and porting my
academic perl 5 to), the problem for me is that people who spend a lot
of time experimenting with less mainstream or c-like languages and
working new stuff into perl 6 forget that us lowly developers with
such language might find some the cool stuff you found in lisp, lua or
bizarro jarring when mixed with more familiar perl or c-isms.
The "objectname operator operator-ish methodnamr" syntax is a great
deal less familiar than objectname operator methodname, especially
when that operator is the universally recognised c++/java/everything
one for the job.
It's particularly strange/jarring to combine a universal operator
that's familiar with a bizarre-super-operator-shortcut-thingy.
Like I said, I probably won't need to save those 2 chars and would
rather the code was clear, and to me the fulllength HOW reads clearer
- of course if you've been writing perl 6 internals that may not be
LAMP System Integration, Development and Hosting
More information about the london.pm