Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2000
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 04:58:34PM -0500, Ilya Zakharevich wrote: > Brad Appleton writes: > > Wolfgang Laun noted that even C<< ... >> will potentially break some > > existing pods. He was think of a sequence he's seen some use to indicate > > a return value of less-than-zero: C<< 0>. This is currently valid POD. > > Adding C<< ... >> would mean it has to be rewritten as C<< < 0 >> (or > > use the ugly E<lt>). Otherwise it will probably look like an unterminated > > sequence. (we could always go back to Larry's earlier proposal of > > C<: ... :> if folks want). > > How can C<::> be better than C<<>>? I certainly like the looks of C<<>> more than C<::>, but the latter can seem "better" in that C<< 0> is no longer ambiguous or an issue as it is with C<< ... >>. Is there something similar that may commonly occur like C<: 0> or C<: xxx>??? I now have a working prototype for C<<>> which would be trivial to change to use C<::> instead. -- Brad Appleton <bradapp@enteract.com> http://www.enteract.com/~bradapp/ "And miles to go before I sleep." -- Robert FrostThread Previous | Thread Next