Re: Are STOP and INIT good names? (was Re: [PATCH pod/perlmod.pod 5.005_63] Special Blocks For Less Than Gurus)

[Steve Fink <sfink@digital-integrity.com>]

Larry Wall wrote:
> 
> That's fine too.  Though, of course, the point of the typical READY
> block would be that it isn't really ready unless we do something else.

But that's good.

BEGIN { what to do in order to begin }
READY { what to do in order to be ready }
INIT { what to do in order to be initialized }
END { what to do in order to end happily }

And reading those as BEGIN|INIT|END|READY(adj) BLOCK(n) implies that
meaning. Of course, in none of those cases is the action in the BLOCK
all that's needed; they're necessary but not sufficient BLOCKs.

TomC wrote:
>
> You can't possibly choose the "right thing" if by the right
> thing, you mean something that everyone will understand WITHOUT
> READING THE FINE MANUAL.

Good idea. Let's call them LINK, COMPILE, REGURGITATE, and REBOOT. And
too many people use + without realizing the subtle differences between
"3"+4 and 3+4, so let's use & for that instead. And perl4 people might
not notice that scalars can now hold references, so let's use :var for
scalars now instead of $var. And so that nobody fails to notice the high
nutritional value of babies...

---

References to:

Larry Wall <larry@wall.org>

---

[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Top&Search][Original]

---