Whose functions are realer (was: Migrating to perl?)

[Cameron Laird]

In article <mailman.978711967.28730.python-list at python.org>,
Moshe Zadka  <moshez at zadka.site.co.il> wrote:
			.
			.
			.
>Well, there isn't anything like taint, but I've found no use for it.
Do you not use rexec?
>In Python, you use real functions to do stuff you do via `` in Perl.
Aahz said this, too.  I don't get it.  Myself,
I fault Perl for making too *many* system things
into accessible functions.  I certainly don't
think of its library as deficient in body count.
>Compare
>
>print $_, "\n" for (split `ls`);
>
>And
>
>for file in os.listdir('.'):
>	print file
Also compare with
  print "$_\n" for (glob "*");

I bet there's something here I need to learn.  Yes,
I can imagine there are historical reasons Perlites
backtick rather freely, but I'll repeat:  to the
best of my knowledge, it's not because Perl lacks
for functions.
			.
			.
			.
>Similarily for other thing. AFAIK, the above is the idiomatic Perl to
>do it. Not to mention wildcard interpretation: it's done directly
You and I speak somewhat different Perls.
			.
			.
			.
-- 

Cameron Laird <claird at NeoSoft.com>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html