Most Perl 6 will look like Perl 5
dave at dave.org.uk
Fri Jan 25 11:57:30 GMT 2008
Quoting Matt Johnson <mwj at doc.ic.ac.uk>:
> Most of that doesn't scare me, but the sigil change makes me want to
> run screaming for the hills. Why completely change a paradigm that's
> worked fine for many years (that the sigil designates the return type)
> -- to something which appears to be different for the sake of
> difference (now the sigil designates the type we're looking into)?
Have you ever run a beginners' Perl training course? The current sigil
behaviour is pretty much guaranteed to be one of the things that makes
most beginners go "huh?" It just doesn't seem to correspond with how
most people expect a language to act.
I agree that the current behaviour seems to make sense. Most Perl
programmers that I've spoken to about it agree that it makes sense.
But most of them (myself included) will admit that it confused them
for a while when they first came across it.
When this change was announced, there was a collective sigh of relief
from Perl trainers round the world.
I also believe that the simplifies some of the dereferencing syntax
but, being a little selfish, it's the time I'll save not having to
explain the current behaviour that I like most about it.
More information about the london.pm