-- John Adams <jadams01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> First, let me admit that I'd probably write that line like this:
>
> open(my $fh, '<', $file) || die "The file $file could not be
opened:
> $!";
>
> The parens around the argument to die adds neither meaning nor ease of
> comprehension; the parens around the arguments to open do add to ease of
> comprehension. (I think. It'd be nice to see an actual experiment
> performed to evaluate my opinion.)
Then why not require them around die?
One advantage to perl's syntax in this area is that you
can avoid heavily-nested parens -- where determining the
nesting level actually takes away from the meaning.
Why would:
open my $fh, '<', $path
or die "Roadkill: $! ($path)""
be all that confusing?
> although I could make an argument for it. What I am saying is that "it's
> easier for me" is a bogus argument.
Up to the point where the syntax-load interferes with
people writing code.
One advantage to Perl's syntax is that the paren's can
be included where necessary -- or edited in later if
anyone finds that refactoring useful. The difference
with Perl over most of, say, Python is that someone
has the freedom to make decisions. Obviously, working
in a group requires negotiating. But if people don't
take the time to agree on coding standards then that
is not a fault of Perl.
--
Steven Lembark 85-09 90th Street
Workhorse Computing Woodhaven, NY 11421
lembark@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 888 359 3508
|
