Re: [FWP] Fun with terminology

[Ronald J Kimball <rjk@linguist.dartmouth.edu>]

On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 11:23:36AM -0700, Larry Rosler wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 11:11:12AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> > > Incidentally, can someone explain to me why perlop uses the term
> 'prefix'
> > > here:
> > >
> > >       Here is what C has that Perl doesn't:
> > >
> > >       unary * Dereference-address operator. (Perl's prefix
> > >               dereferencing operators are typed: $, @, %, and &.)
> > >
> > > instead of 'unary'?  It seems to me that the Perl dereferencing
> operators
> > > are just as unary as C's *, so I'm wondering why the mix of
> terminology in
> > > the same paragraph.
> > >
> >
> > Probably because Perl also has the infix dereferencing operator ->
> which is
> > not typed.
> 
> The last time I looked, C has one of those also.  :-)  Try again?
> 

I'm not sure what bearing that has on the original question.

The question is:

Why does the sentence say "Perl's prefix dereferencing operators are
typed"?

And my answer is:

The phrase "Perl's dereferencing operators are typed" would not be
correct.

Ronald

==== Want to unsubscribe from Fun With Perl?  Well, if you insist...
==== Send email to <fwp-request@technofile.org> with message _body_
====   unsubscribe