Re: Why don't file handles have sigils?

Q: why something perl

A: Because :)

I see a lot of references to how things would be easier if file handles had sigils.

Where do you see them?

I consider such stuff nonsense :)

Things would be much easier, if only things worked the way I thought ... but then they'd be something else ; perl should really work the way I think, I shouldn't have to learn how it works

A filehandle is just another $scalar

Is there some reason why they don't?

scalars are scalars, barewords are barewords ... which sigil would be used?

There isn't a special sigil for objects, or a special sigil for integers, why should filehandles be so special?

See below

Using references works great but mixing references with barewords for STDIN/OUT/ERR seems messy.

Maybe to noobs, you can always use typeglobs or typeglob references, \*STDIN, \*STDOUT, \*STDERR

So there is a sigil for typeglobs, its as close as you can get ... STDIN/STDOUT/STDERR/DATA are the only bareword filehandles I use, the rest are $scalars (only available since perl 5.6.0, and yes, there was perl before 5.6.0 )

Comment on Re: Why don't file handles have sigils?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Why don't file handles have sigils? by 1s44c (Scribe) on Jul 08, 2014 at 23:54 UTC
Things would be much easier, if only things worked the way I thought ... but then they'd be something else ; perl should really work the way I think, I shouldn't have to learn how it works That's really not what I meant. I meant "why is it like that, is there some reason I don't know about?"	[reply]
Re^3: Why don't file handles have sigils? by Anonymous Monk on Jul 09, 2014 at 01:48 UTC
Things would be much easier, if only things worked the way I thought ... but then they'd be something else ; perl should really work the way I think, I shouldn't have to learn how it works That's really not what I meant. I meant "why is it like that, is there some reason I don't know about?" Ok, but you said you saw references; cite your references :D ; If they're all in your head, thats cool, but we can't see inside; my experience seeing such reasoning comes from a "professor type" who isn't satisfied with Logic-Wall and "backwards compatibility rules" and has for 26 years Here is another tip http://perl5.git.perl.org/perl.git/tags ... 26 years ago perl-1.0 a "replacement" for awk and sed So the reason is, A Larry Wall can't think of everything :) thats the way it was in the beginning, and backwards compatibility is important :) In 1987-12-18 the Larry Wall released a "replacement" for awk and sed perl-1.0 with barewords for filehandles; all variables were globals Maybe there is more info in perl-1.0 sources, or in the usenet postings from 1987, happy hunting Q: Why did the chicken cross the road? A: Chickens do that :)	[reply]
Re^4: Why don't file handles have sigils? by boftx (Deacon) on Jul 09, 2014 at 01:56 UTC
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road? A: To show the armadillo it could be done. You must always remember that the primary goal is to *drain the swamp* even when you are hip-deep in alligators.	[reply]
Re^5: Why don't file handles have sigils? by Anonymous Monk on Jul 09, 2014 at 02:20 UTC
Re^4: Why don't file handles have sigils? by Anonymous Monk on Jul 09, 2014 at 02:28 UTC
Intermediate Perl 2012 Page 116 -- "We'd have a much easier time if filehandles had sigils!"	[reply]