Re: Proposal: Array syntax

On November 5, 2003 11:21 am, you wrote: > Well, like I said before, I am not sure this is a clear case of that. I'm > probably the biggest defender around of the no-magic rule, but [] does > imply something array-related to most people, so I think the magic part is > much smaller than in other proposals we have seen. Right now [] could either be an array element or an offset. Now it can either be an array element or a string offset or an attempt to create a new array. Individually it may be fine, but I am certain we'll end up with bug reports of people trying to do $a = $b[1,2,3]; (copied from your resonse ;) ) and similar. Of course someone would then want to do $a[1,2,3] = [3,4,5]; and we're happily on our road to obfuscation. I mean c'mon, is 5 characters that much of a problem and is absolute code clarity not worth those 5 characters? Character efficiency is done in Perl, where you can do things like ~= and @_, but that makes Perl code naturally obfuscated and I do not think that's a good way to go. Ilia