in reply to Apparent Inconsistencies in Perl Function Naming
Larry said in one presentation I saw him make (can't recall which one now) that orthogonality isn't even for the birds... you don't see a bird go from northwest to southeast by flying one square south then one square east then one square south... Birds take the direct route, and so does Perl. Perl has operations for the things you do, and they're convenient in the domain of the thing you're working on.
The length of an array has no operator name, by the way. It's the name of the array in a scalar context. Nearly every time I do that, I don't have to say scalar, because I'm already in a scalar context. And I never think of substr as a "slice" of a string. It's a substring.
Get your terminology straight, and Perl makes sense. Try to look for artificial order along an axis not present, and you'll be no better than the scientists who claim that the drains drain clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere.
-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re (tilly) 2: Apparent Inconsistencies in Perl Function Naming
by tilly (Archbishop) on Nov 24, 2000 at 19:57 UTC | |
|
Re: (sidenote) Apparent Inconsistencies in Perl Function Naming
by el-moe (Scribe) on Nov 29, 2000 at 03:09 UTC | |
by merlyn (Sage) on Nov 29, 2000 at 03:14 UTC | |
by el-moe (Scribe) on Nov 29, 2000 at 06:50 UTC | |
by Anonymous Monk on Jan 24, 2004 at 20:08 UTC |