I should know better than to come back at you on this and just allow the visually obvious to win the day.
(Especially as I don't really believe that you really believe half of what you've said in this thread.)
Yes, your persistent presumption of bad faith on my part is indeed a problem (especially when the paranoia surfaces). But that is something you would have to choose to do something about.
Whitespace "adds complexity" is so obviously wrong.
An additional level of nesting does indeed add complexity. Using indentation to use whitespace to show this nesting indeed adds clarity. My complaint about the added level was not about the use of whitespace but about the adding of depth to the nesting.
As for the rest, you seem to have a rather shallow perspective on the internal process of understanding code. I'm not surprised that the simple examples being discussed are such that you could perceive your understanding of them as instantaneous (and equally simple). Surely you sometimes come across code that you don't understand instantaneously. You might have to imagine such a case and then add one more layer of nesting to that construct.
And I am not just making stuff up when I note that it is sometimes difficult to identify the '[' or '{' or lack of either that has to be combined with the matching prior '@' in order to understand which of three different types of dereferencing is being done. That you can't even imagine that being the case perhaps just means that you are ill suited for considering relative difficulty of parsing, since everything seems so trivial for you? I've also certainly seen other people be slowed by such complications.
- tye
In reply to Re^7: use feature 'postderef'; # Postfix Dereference Syntax is coming in 5.20 (perception)
by tye
in thread use feature 'postderef'; # Postfix Dereference Syntax is coming in 5.20
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |