in reply to The behavior is [sic] undefined
I'd like to point out two things about that referenced post:
Relying upon knowledge of the specifications of another, more technical language as the explanation of Perl's foibles, is IMO, like telling a child they have synchronous diaphragmatic flutter, when they suffer a bout of a common childhood malady.
It reminds me of those archaic legal phrases that still persist despite that few people ever really understood them, and almost no one does now. Eg. The term "larceny" persists in US legal proceedings, despite that it has long been abolished in the country where it originated.
Just because an illogical grammatical expression has made it into common(*) use--especially, when that is so only for a restricted audience--does not seem reason enough to perpetuate it when there are better, clearer alternatives.
Strange. It seems that it is often the same people who would complain about the use of obscure Perl syntax, that would perpetuate these kinds of in-the-know phrases.
(*)For some definition of the word:common.
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^2: The behavior is [sic] undefined
by JavaFan (Canon) on May 14, 2009 at 10:49 UTC | |
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 14, 2009 at 14:00 UTC | |
by JavaFan (Canon) on May 14, 2009 at 14:13 UTC |