in reply to The reason for the "yada yada" operator

It's shorter and reads better, which is an argument for a lot of things in Perl, including say.

It's not overloading the range or flip/flop operator in the grammar sense, because there was no syntactic construct in the Perl 5 grammar for ... as a term or nullary operator.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: The reason for the "yada yada" operator
by tobyink (Canon) on Jul 11, 2013 at 16:28 UTC

    Also, there were already gazillions of examples in documentation like:

    if (frobnicate(42)) {
   ...
}

    [download]

    Implementation of the yada-yada operator made them all syntactically correct. :-)

    package Cow { use Moo; has name => (is => 'lazy', default => sub { 'Mooington' }) } say Cow->new->name
[reply]
[d/l]
Re^2: The reason for the "yada yada" operator
by sundarurfriend (Novice) on Jul 11, 2013 at 17:13 UTC
    > It's shorter and reads better

    The "reads better" part is hugely subjective though, and in my opinion ... only obfuscates thing a bit. die 'Unimplemented' is self-documenting, can be read out aloud, and it's immediately obvious what it does, whereas ... just looks pretty and cool (IMHO of course).

    > It's not overloading the range or flip/flop operator in the grammar sense

    It still overloads the actual sequence of characters ..., which is a mental burden, and IMO unnecessary for such a miniscule benefit. Perl developers are used to the scalar/list context distinction between range and flip-flop operation, but this introduces new behavior in yet another context for pretty flimsy reasons.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
      The "reads better" part is hugely subjective though...

      Maybe, but as tobyink reminded me, it was already an implicit operator in plenty of documentation, which all of a sudden started to compile correctly.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom