6 ms·

* very first program simply does not work * lack of strict * lack of warnings * lack of my * bareword filehandles * mentions &-calling of su

* very first program simply does not work * lack of strict * lack of warnings * lack of my * bareword filehandles * mentions &-calling of subs * thinks it's the same as normal calling * snowflake formatting style * mentions EXTREMELY outdated books as further reading * confuses capitalization of builtins in code examples * fails to explain compile phase semantics properly, instead introduces "use" as magical * quotes hash keys * explains prototypes as something that could be used in general * explains post-fix dereference syntax, but describes cumbersome circumfix syntaxes as default * 2-arg open instead of 3-arg open I'm halfway down, i can't be arsed anymore. I feel like i'm reading the Leeds Perl 4 tutorial all over again.

killertypo 13y ago
what's funny, i saw the lack of strict and thought...hrmm, well without that we'll see what happens here.
mattmight 13y ago
> very first program simply does not work Guilty. Facepalm. Embarassed. Fixed. > lack of strict Not in scope (it's not a tutorial on good Perl), but I'll mention it. > lack of warnings Added a general disclaimer in the abstract. > lack of my I documented `my` in the subsection on scoping disciplines. I _tried_ not to use features before I'd introduced them. And, for most of the "probes," `my` wasn't necessary. > bareword filehandles Good point. Added scalar filehandles, as well as how to pass bare words with typeglobs. Changed most examples to scalar filehandles too. In doing so, I stumbled across the implicit method invocation form that happens when the first argument to a procedure is an object, so I added an example of that too. This is exactly the kind of "semantic surprise" that led me to start digging. > mentions &-calling of subs Of course. It's possible, and it can change the semantics of procedure call. > thinks it's the same as normal calling I had documented the differences. Look carefully: The procedure call example includes an error case. In the parameter passing subsection, I had included a mention of how `&proc` (no args), receives current @_. > snowflake formatting style Yep. Definitely not a style guide. > mentions EXTREMELY outdated books as further reading I added a link to Modern Perl (as suggested). And, the new edition of Mastering Perl came out last week. It flipped through it, and it seemed updated. > confuses capitalization of builtins in code examples Bug. Fixed. > fails to explain compile phase semantics properly, instead introduces "use" as magical Guilty. I thought about including this in the first revision, but I was nearing exhaustion. I'll add it later. > quotes hash keys It's legal. > explains prototypes as something that could be used in general I just explain what they are. They're a part of the language, and they have important consequences for both parsing and interpretation. > explains post-fix dereference syntax, but describes cumbersome circumfix syntaxes as default I don't endorse either syntax as default. > 2-arg open instead of 3-arg open I'm not trying to document the library, or teach good use, but I added an example for 3-arg. Thanks for your feedback!

killertypo 13y ago

what's funny, i saw the lack of strict and thought...hrmm, well without that we'll see what happens here.

mattmight 13y ago

> very first program simply does not work Guilty. Facepalm. Embarassed. Fixed. > lack of strict Not in scope (it's not a tutorial on good Perl), but I'll mention it. > lack of warnings Added a general disclaimer in the abstract. > lack of my I documented `my` in the subsection on scoping disciplines. I _tried_ not to use features before I'd introduced them. And, for most of the "probes," `my` wasn't necessary. > bareword filehandles Good point. Added scalar filehandles, as well as how to pass bare words with typeglobs. Changed most examples to scalar filehandles too. In doing so, I stumbled across the implicit method invocation form that happens when the first argument to a procedure is an object, so I added an example of that too. This is exactly the kind of "semantic surprise" that led me to start digging. > mentions &-calling of subs Of course. It's possible, and it can change the semantics of procedure call. > thinks it's the same as normal calling I had documented the differences. Look carefully: The procedure call example includes an error case. In the parameter passing subsection, I had included a mention of how `&proc` (no args), receives current @_. > snowflake formatting style Yep. Definitely not a style guide. > mentions EXTREMELY outdated books as further reading I added a link to Modern Perl (as suggested). And, the new edition of Mastering Perl came out last week. It flipped through it, and it seemed updated. > confuses capitalization of builtins in code examples Bug. Fixed. > fails to explain compile phase semantics properly, instead introduces "use" as magical Guilty. I thought about including this in the first revision, but I was nearing exhaustion. I'll add it later. > quotes hash keys It's legal. > explains prototypes as something that could be used in general I just explain what they are. They're a part of the language, and they have important consequences for both parsing and interpretation. > explains post-fix dereference syntax, but describes cumbersome circumfix syntaxes as default I don't endorse either syntax as default. > 2-arg open instead of 3-arg open I'm not trying to document the library, or teach good use, but I added an example for 3-arg. Thanks for your feedback!