This is a shortcoming of Perl. Who the hell decided to permit overloading of some of the operators and not all? It's inconsistent. It leads to shortcomings in everything which wants to take advantage of overloading. Why shouldn't I expect Perl to be more useful in this respect?In your original post, you imply that Damian had some choice about overloading =~ or not. This means you jumped to the gun about finding blame for some error, simply because you lacked some understanding.
What I said in the title is exactly right based on both merlyn's response and what the author of the module Damian Conway said.A documentation error in an example is hardly grounds for "doesn't work as advertised". Had you read the surrounding text, you would have realized that the example was in error, not that there were bugs in the code. Again, this means you jumped to the gun about finding blame for some error, simply because you lacked some understanding.
There seemed to be an error in my program and Perl certainly did not alert me to it,But there was no error in your program. It was a syntactically valid program. Again, this means you jumped to the gun about finding blame for some error, simply because you lacked some understanding.
Do you see the pattern here? This is what ovid was also trying to point out. You must stop before posting, and ask yourself "maybe there's nothing wrong out there... and it's just something I don't yet understand".
-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
In reply to RE: RE: (Ovid - question your posting strategy)
by merlyn
in thread What Data::Dumper dumps is not necessarily what is there
by princepawn
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |