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

[Damian Conway <damian@cs.monash.edu.au>]

   > I think the "single flow of control" idea is the problem.

Indeed. But for most people it's a useful Newtonian approximation
to the frighteningly Quantum truth.

   
   > It really is in two broad, distinct phases.... Now, it just so
   > happens that you can ignore DONE and pretend that it is a "single
   > flow of control", but it sure ain't like that. I think it is
   > counter-productive to perpetuate that myth by choosing names that
   > "fit in" with the myth.

True. Though ideally we'd find a solution that is faithful to the
reality, but doesn't cause confusion for the majority who can't (or
won't) give up the comfort and convenience of the myth.


   > I wish we could do PARSE::BEGIN, PARSE::END, RUN::BEGIN, and END::RUN

Er, RUN::END?

   > (or even {BEGIN,END}::{PARSE,RUN}).  Maybe that's what we oughtta
   > do.

Yes, I was thinking along those lines too -- with BEGIN, END, and maybe
INIT) preserved for backwards compatibility.

An additionally advantage is that it's easier to explain the various
LIFI/FIFO sequences: BEGIN is always FIFO, END is always LIFO.

I think {BEGIN,END}::{PARSE,RUN} is the better alternative, since people
are more used to seeing BEGIN and END. In addition, we could achieve
partial backwards compatibility by making ::PARSE the default for BEGIN
and ::RUN the default for END.


Damian

---

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

---