Penultimately, I say it's definitely not complicated enough. When I can talk to it in English and have it do what I want, then it'll be complicated enough.
Well OK then, how does the proposal generalize to things like this:
$mystery = $a < $b < $c < $d < $f;
Quick - say: which one is the ternary operator? Why cause such problems when a little subroutine is enough?
In a less tongue-in-cheek mode, the complexity of the parser shouldn't, IMHO, drive the development of the language. The first sentence of the Preface of the Camel book is 'Perl is a language for getting your job done'. It's not 'Perl is a language with a reasonably, but not unreasonably, complicated parser'.
Perl is a language for getting your job done - right. After writing this little subroutine, the job is done. Why wait for other people to do jobs for you that you can do for yourself in 30 seconds.
Christian Lemburg
Brainbench MVP for Perl
http://www.brainbench.com
In reply to Re: Re: Why not support this syntax?
by clemburg
in thread Why not support this syntax?
by MeowChow
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |