in reply to Polysignant variables

P.S. What do you think of 'polysignant'? Anyone got a better word for what I mean?

I think it sounds too much like poly-signet, so when I started reading I thought you specifically meant $foo vs @foo vs %foo, or refs pointing to different fundimental types at different times; not a variable being used for different things at different times.

For better ideas, see Roget on meaning/signification.

—John

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
sigil
by da (Friar) on Aug 06, 2001 at 07:38 UTC
    If the proper name for %, $, @, and * are sigils, I suspect polysigilant is a more proper term for what you describe, even though it's more of a mouthful than polysignet.

    I suggest polytypic.

    As to whether it's a good idea to do it, I really prefer my variables to be self-documenting all the way through the code, and it seems an unneccessary shortcut. If I did it, it probably would lead to confusion down the road.

    Update: I'm not able to come up with the origin of the word sigil, but I first saw it in Damian Conway's Exegesis 2, and I know the term is used by gnat and japhy.

    ___ -DA > perl -MPOSIX -e'$ENV{TZ}="US/Eastern";print ctime(10**9)' Sat Sep 8 21:46:40 2001
      Says [da]:
      I'm not able to come up with the origin of the word sigil, but I first saw it in Damian Conway's Exegesis 2, and I know the term is used by gnat and japhy.
      The term 'sigil' to mean the funny character at the front of a Perl variable was coined on 3 March 1999 by Philip Gwyn. I immediately posted about it to p5p:

      The source code actually uses the term `funny characters' to refer to the $@%*& characters that select the variable type. This terminology leaves a lot to be desired, but until now, I'd never heard a better suggestion. They don't really have a good name. This has sometimes been a problem for me when I've written documentation. The temptation is to pretend that the funny character is part of the variable name, which it isn't.

      Philip Gwyn just used the word `sigil'. This struck me as a really wonderful coinage that shouldn't be lost. The spelling of `sigil' suggests `sign', which is good, and the word doesn't presently have any other meaning in the Perl context, also good.

      Glancing over man pages like `perldata' I can see a lot of places where the explanations would become simpler or more accurate if the word `sigil' were used.

      Finally, according to the dictionary here, it means:

      A sign or image considered magical.
      Which is a really perfect description of it.

      The term started catching on right away, and has gradually gained popularity.
      I've seen signet used reciently, in official circles. I remember looking it up, after reading something by Larry or Damian.

      Sigil is another word for signet. (http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=sigil)

      —John

Re: Nomenclature
by spudzeppelin (Pilgrim) on Aug 06, 2001 at 18:21 UTC

    Which of course to me sounds like polycygnant, or "having multiple swans." The pond by my house, for example, is polycygnant.

    Of course, I suppose we could (if we're really trying to conjure up as much confusion as possible) overload THAT word as well: suppose a polycygnant variable is one that has multiple attributes; it's not totally out of line: attribute ~ albatross (worn around the variable's neck) ~ swan (another large white aquatic bird).

    Of course, this babble is brought to you by the virus (in the microbial, not digital sense) I contracted yesterday, so take it FWIW.

    Spud Zeppelin * spud@spudzeppelin.com

      Since polycygnant with Perl, and the root sygnant isn't in general use, I don't think it's confusing since the "Perl context" should have you thinking of one vocabulary, and "Pond context" another. I can see them overlapping if you published an article on using Perl with your pond, though.

      Or, maybe polycygnant is what you call what happens when you have a program that requires both 1.x and 2.0 of cygwin.dll