Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
wiggly at wiggly.org
Wed Oct 8 12:18:56 BST 2008
Andy Armstrong wrote:
> On 7 Oct 2008, at 17:50, Iain Barnett wrote:
>>> Why wait for Perl 6? Perl 5 has had it for almost a year now. It's
>>> spelled ~~ though.
>> Is there some reason why -- was picked over 'in' ? It just seems to
>> pander to those who think perl reads like line noise.
> It's ~~ not -- and it's not just in - it's a general purpose adaptive
> match whose semantics are determined by the things being matched.
> And (meta) who cares about people who think that Perl reads like line
> noise. Should the language bend to the preferences of those who dislike it?
People who care about Perl, like it, and want more people to do the same.
Do you not recall the amount of disagreement caused when the list
discussed some perl 6 features syntax that split people horribly into
the "it's just so much line noise" vs "what's wrong with line noise" camps?
And, having already read Iain's reply, I agree. That's not the winning
attitude that Perl advocates should aim to present.
More information about the london.pm