From: George Ogata <g_ogata@...>
Date: 2002-08-10T19:06:13+09:00
Subject: Re: ambiguity between local variable assignment and writter method

> now there only seems two options left, and they are both constructions.
> the construction just stated above (:=) or, and i think the proper way
> to have done it, a prefix symbol for local variables.
> 
> %localvariable = 'i am me, not some method'
> 

You're kidding, right?  I think one of the things that makes Perl so unreadable is the 
amount of $$wildlife \@growing %out[$of] =~ /the/ \${@writing} $!  It's nice the way ruby 
doesn't go over the top with it, and perhaps even at times uses it to improve readability.

> unfortunately that's just not going to go over well with the population
> at large. and i can only wish that it was included early on. all
> variables would have a prefix (%, @, @@, $) and methods would not, Ruby
> might be a tad faster, and our conversation would never had to exist.
> ;-)

I'd say locals don't use prefixes (prefices?) since locals are (one of) the most common 
identifiers used, and that sort of junk ought to be minimized.

I'd personally rather lose the o.member = 'something' notation for method calling.  As 
David Alan Black mentioned:

>> Isn't it good to have to know when you're calling a method and when
>> you're assigning to a local variable :-)

Anyhow, I wouldn't consider anything backward-incompatible likely to be worthy of 
Rubydom.

> 
> ~transami
> 
> p.s outside of another solution. i have to fall back, unless you all
> like %, yeah right! :-}
> 
> thanks!