On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 09:43:36PM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 01:26:36PM -0700, Gary Richardson wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Graham Barr wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 08:49:14PM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote: > > > > He's also said that it's likely that dots will be allowed for indirect > > > > object notation: > > > > > > > > $foo.method(); > > > > > > > > same as > > > > > > > > $foo->method(); > > > > > > That is actually one suggestion I dislike. People refered to this as aligning > > > with other languages. But if you consider references like C/C++ pointers then > > > we are already aligned with them. > > > > And what about concating strings? What happens to the overloaded . then? > > It's a big *may*. I'm sure Larry will weigh it all up carefully. Which is why I have not really said much. No point in all shouting "but I like this and that" until some decision is made. In fact theres no point shouting at all as I assume most decisions will be made with plenty of insight and thought. Graham.