note
dimar
<blockquote>
Perhaps a reason for the need for operator overloading is due to the finite number of symbols on a standard keyboard?
</blockquote>
<p>
Not necessarily, when you consider that any arbitrary language construct can be represented with any arbitrary arrangement of symbols, for example:
<code>
MY_NAMED_BLOCK: BlockBegin
### No curly braces were used, but then this is just
### pseudocode, not perl.
For (0..10):
print sys.accumulator;
print sys.newline;
EndFor
BlockEnd
</code>
</p>
<p>
If you wanted to, you could easily write a script to
convert that into perl. Is it perl? No, but it can be translated unambiguously.
</p>
<p>When I was new to programming, I used to be much more impressed with the fancy symbols, and I thought there had to be some esoteric and mathematically precise rationale for every element of syntax. Perhaps (on some very deep epistemological level) there is. Another explanation, however, is that <i>some things are just plain easier to type, and different people have different preferences, backgrounds, expectations and styles</i>. </p>
<p>This is an important consideration, because it will help you to be less intimidated about learning new things in perl (and even learning new languages); and less mystified by conventions that may seem confusing at first, but end up saving you a *lot* of time and hassle when you understand what they are good for.</p>
<!-- Node text goes above. Div tags should contain sig only -->
<br />
<div class="pmsig"><div class="pmsig-347753">
<font size="-2">
=oQDlNWYsBHI5JXZ2VGIulGIlJXYgQkUPxEIlhGdgY2bgMXZ5VGIlhGV
</font>
</div></div>
522883
522999