Re^4: Why should I use perl 5.10?

And println is too long, compared to say ;-)

I personally believe that this is serious enough not to warrant a ;-) since the keyword is huffmanization. IME I tend to print ... "\n" just as often or more than in "\n"-less form so in oneliners and minimal example scripts I tend to use -l quite a lot. But that is bad and risky in that as sometimes it pops up, it can interact with modules that do actual prints. And module authors probably should not be concerned with setting local $\ accordingly. So for all these reasons and for the others that have been said here thus far, however simple it is say() is welcome, and a blessing!

Comment on Re^4: Why should I use perl 5.10? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Why should I use perl 5.10? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 02, 2007 at 00:49 UTC
And module authors probably should not be concerned with setting local $\ accordingly. They are exactly the people who should be concerned with it. They are making assumptions about the environment in which they will run, which is not theirs to dictate. But overall, I welcome say. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. "Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."	[reply]
Re^6: Why should I use perl 5.10? by blazar (Canon) on Dec 02, 2007 at 12:41 UTC
They are exactly the people who should be concerned with it. They are making assumptions about the environment in which they will run, which is not theirs to dictate. I personally believe that you're perfectly right. What I meant is that it is annoying, though, to have to do so. Specifically, to print is also much like speaking, and it is strange that the environment influences how do I speak: generally it is to be expected that people will understand differently and I may consciously adapt the way I speak, but not directly because of the environment - except when it is helium filled, perhaps.	[reply]
Re^7: Why should I use perl 5.10? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 02, 2007 at 13:08 UTC
it is strange that the environment influences how do I speak: I guess it's analogous to to getting an echo when conversing in a canyon :) Alternatively, you could make the case that a module doesn't speak for it's author, but rather acts on behalf of the application author that uses it. But, I do get what you mean. In the docs for 5.10 I just read about the new lexical `$_` that locally overrides the global of the same name. It struck me that it would be nice if a similar arrangement was possible for many/most of the special globals, but on a package by package basis. Eg. If I declare and set a `$/` at the top level of my package, then whenever the global of that name would be used, the local package instance (if it exists) would be used in preference to the global. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. "Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^8: Why should I use perl 5.10? by blazar (Canon) on Dec 02, 2007 at 16:54 UTC
Re^9: Why should I use perl 5.10? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 03, 2007 at 00:18 UTC


P is for Practical
	PerlMonks