in reply to Re^4: Why is const x const not a const?
in thread Why is const x const not a const?

No. You are absolutely wrong on all counts!

First. Look at the post I was responding to. The premise was, that it is much clearer from '=' x 80 that there are 80 '=' than if you used 

==================================================================

[download]

so your 'correction' is wrong in context.

Secondly, your assumption that that string is a "SECTION_SEPERATOR" is wrong. It cannot be right, because you have no basis upon which to reach that conclusion.

But mostly, trading use constant for that vacuous, puerile, slow, stupid, braindead, idiotic, stupid -- did I say stupid already? -- worthless, pathetic, fscked-up, oxymoronic piece of crap is ... um .. oh dear, I seems to have run out of appropriate adjectives.

Update: Oooh. OOoh! I thought of one: fatuous. ( I didn't use that already did I? )

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

The start of some sanity?

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom