Re (tilly) 3: Dots and cargo-cult programming

in reply to Re: Re: Dots and cargo-cult programming
in thread Dots and cargo-cult programming

Several of the differences between Perl5 and Perl6 are intended to reduce the amount of dereferencing you have to do. So I like thinking of this syntax change as just being Yet Another way of indicating to people that you are supposed to be thinking in terms of more immediate data structures and less about having a reference that you dereference.

YMMV, but that is true to the usage of both . and -> in C.

Comment on Re (tilly) 3: Dots and cargo-cult programming

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re (tilly) 3: Dots and cargo-cult programming by frag (Hermit) on Jul 15, 2001 at 11:35 UTC
I'm not sure I follow this. The dot is ugly, but it's not like it inherently discourages you from using it. In fact, it could be said "->" is better for that purpose: more letters to type. (And 3 times more keys!) Plus, you have to use it for objects, unless you want to encourage 'indirect object' syntax. -- Frag.	[reply]
Re (tilly) 5: Dots and cargo-cult programming by tilly (Archbishop) on Jul 15, 2001 at 13:02 UTC
In C accessing a struct directly is done with a ".", but accessing a struct through a reference is done with an "->". So to my eyes the arrow says "indirected through a reference. YMMV.	[reply]

In Section Meditations