Re: [FWP] Fun with terminology

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

On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 11:45:51AM -0700, Larry Rosler wrote:
> > > > 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.
> 
> Read it again!  The question is:
> 
> Why does the sentence say "Perl's prefix dereferencing operators are
> typed" instead of saying "Perl's unary dereferencing operators are
> typed"?
> 

Okay, my answer is:

Because 'prefix' is a more specific term than 'unary', so using 'prefix'
makes the sentence more exact.


> Your observation about Perl also having an infix deferenceing operator
> is irrelevant.
> 

Okay, but only if your observation about C also having an infix
dereferencing operator is irrelevant as well.  :)

Ronald

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