Hi Corion. You said "This idiom is frequently used and if somebody cannot read it, they should just learn Perl."

Sort of a side issue, maybe, but does this imply you might not agree with Damion Conway's idea of not using perl's "unless/until" operators because they are not as familiar to non-Perl programmers who might follow or is it more due to the frequency with which you perceive the idiom to be used?

If the idiom is frequently used (I've not seen it used that often, but perhaps its being frequently used because the feature is common more common in compiled languages more typically studied or taught in computer science and course work?

Perhaps I've had a different exposure , but didn't most of those languages that don't support it (other than C or C++...C++ doesn't? ) come out *after* perl and aren't all of them (or weren't all of them) designed as script languages? I tended to think lack of that feature fell into more primitive languages (from a compiler language perspective). Even "C" was was initially used was barely more more than a high level assembler in earlier Unix days.

I may be imagining or projecting things based on my limited exposure, but besides Pascal and Modula, I believe PL/M and it's predecessor PL/I and the majority of the few third generation computer languages that were developed. I don't remember if Ada had it or not. It seemed to be semantically rich. PL/M was more in use as a system language on Intel machines before C rose in popularity. I remember being saddened at the paucity of language semantics in 'C' when I started getting into more complex programs but I also seem to remember that languages that support Object oriented features like Classes/Packages and that supported multiple inheritance could be written with "pseudo" support for such -- since usually one doesn't need or use such features beyond 2nd' level functions, and many people seemed to employ Classes or Packages as 1st level procedures in languages that didn't have the better compiler support of HLL (High Level Language (implication being compiled, as they tended toward being based more on computer language theory than interpretive or scripting languages).

I'd always hoped that the scripting languages would game more language richness over time. So much is focused on the accompanying language library these days (many common library functions being 'keywords' n Perl), that not much development is going toward language semantics. I hoped Perl6 might take Perl5 in that direction, but from what little I've seen of it, it seems to be becoming a language as different from perl5 as ruby or or python -- more of a revolutionary development than evolutionary, but that may be subjective...

In reply to Re^6: Perl scoping not logical...? by perl-diddler
in thread Perl scoping not logical...? by perl-diddler

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.