Re: [FWP] Fun with terminology

[Peter Scott <Peter@PSDT.com>]

At 02:32 PM 10/29/99 -0400, Ronald J Kimball wrote:
>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.

The question was,

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


--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies


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