Re: Apocalypse 12

print 3 . 5;
print 3.5;
[download]

I fail to see your point here. In the first line, there are 5 tokens, 'print', '3', '.', '5', and ';'. In the second line there are 3 tokens, 'print', '3.5', and ';'.

print "$foo{bar}";
print "$foo {bar}";
[download]

Indeed, and something that doesn't make me very happy. Luckely this is a problem that is usually found by the compiler, assuming you have 'strict' turned on, and don't have a scalar with the same name as the hash.

And yes, I know certain people hate it. They can write their own grammar.

Oh, I read that. Do you think that if people start writing their own grammars (of which I haven't seen any indication that it will be anything but hard to get it right) that that will produce maintainable code?

Abigail

Comment on Re: Apocalypse 12 Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Apocalypse 12 by Juerd (Abbot) on Apr 20, 2004 at 09:22 UTC
Do you think that if people start writing their own grammars (of which I haven't seen any indication that it will be anything but hard to get it right) that that will produce maintainable code? Yes, I do. (And probably will have a grammar or bunch of macros of my own) Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }	[reply]
Re: Apocalypse 12 by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Apr 20, 2004 at 09:40 UTC
So, on CPAN, we'll get `Grammar::Juerd`, `Grammar::RandomPerlHacker`, `Grammar::Bleach`, `Grammar::Pony` (might as well move them from `ACME::`), etc? Considering the confusion I've seen after posting a few programming snippets that used the defined-or operator, I don't share your opinion. But time will tell. Abigail	[reply]
Re^2: Apocalypse 12 by adrianh (Chancellor) on Apr 20, 2004 at 15:58 UTC
Considering the confusion I've seen after posting a few programming snippets that used the defined-or operator, I don't share your opinion. Would there have been less confusion if the snippet had something like `use Grammar::DefinedOps Ť// //=ť;` at the top? The Lisp world copes reasonably well with macros. Pop-11, a nice language I spent several years using, also allowed people to create their own syntax. Nothing terrible happened. Yes, the ability to mess with the language at the syntactic level moves from the language developers to the language users. This leads to idiotic language variations that everybody ignores, and clever language variations that everybody uses. If Pop-11 is anything to go by the the most useful will get adopted into the core.	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Apocalypse 12 by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Apr 20, 2004 at 16:31 UTC
Re: Re: Apocalypse 12 by TimToady (Parson) on Apr 20, 2004 at 19:40 UTC
Re^4: Apocalypse 12 by adrianh (Chancellor) on Apr 20, 2004 at 20:56 UTC
Re: Re: Apocalypse 12 by Juerd (Abbot) on Apr 20, 2004 at 15:55 UTC
So, on CPAN, we'll get Grammar::Juerd, Grammar::RandomPerlHacker, Grammar::Bleach, Grammar::Pony (might as well move them from ACME::), etc? I'm hoping for Dialect::. I want to call my dialect Dialect::Perlego. (Read it however you want. Perl-eg-o (Esperanto for great pearl), Perl-ego, or Per-Lego) Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }	[reply]


Think about Loose Coupling
	PerlMonks