Re^14: chopping a string into slices - is there a more elegant way to do it?

> so I'm not sure what you are trying to prove.

I'm trying to find a resonable simple model to understand perl's syntax!

Thumbrules which are alway true!

Kind of "Ducktyping" where the opcode details do not matter!

With other words: Do you really want to tell a beginner that parens on LHS make "=" act like aassign instead of sassign???

do you understand me now?

Cheers Rolf

Comment on Re^14: chopping a string into slices - is there a more elegant way to do it?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^15: chopping a string into slices - is there a more elegant way to do it? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Dec 01, 2008 at 14:21 UTC
I say "parens force a list assignment", not "parens force a list". The concepts are already simple. I don't need to make up rules to keep it simple. That only leads to making up more rules on the fly.	[reply]
Re^16: chopping a string into slices - is there a more elegant way to do it? by LanX (Saint) on Dec 01, 2008 at 14:29 UTC
> The concepts are already simple. simple != trivial If it is really inevitable to teach opcode mechanisms, it's perfectly understandable when people prefer learning languages like python or ruby... Cheers Rolf	[reply]
Re^17: chopping a string into slices - is there a more elegant way to do it? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Dec 01, 2008 at 16:02 UTC
Of course Perl isn't trivial??? All we can strive for is to keep things as simple as possible. Not creating unnecessary myths keeps things simple.	[reply]
Re^18: chopping a string into slices - is there a more elegant way to do it? by LanX (Saint) on Dec 01, 2008 at 16:15 UTC
Re^19: chopping a string into slices - is there a more elegant way to do it? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Dec 01, 2008 at 17:06 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here