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 )
In reply to Re: Why don't file handles have sigils?
by Anonymous Monk
in thread Why don't file handles have sigils?
by 1s44c
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |