develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2000

Re: proposed perlpod.pod patch

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Ronald J Kimball
February 4, 2000 14:21
Re: proposed perlpod.pod patch
Message ID:
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 05:05:16PM -0500, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 04:02:42PM -0600, Brad Appleton wrote:
> > > 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>???
> Of course.  Say, C<:> ;-).  Or C<:tag_name>.

Don't forget that with either proposal the delimiter must be followed by
whitespace (other than a newline).  So, C<:> and C<:tag_name> would still
be legal.

However, I'm curious about why a newline isn't allowed as the whitespace
following C<<.  Does that mean that this would be legal:

   if ($x < $y) {
     print "Hello!\n";

But this wouldn't:

   if ($x <$y) {
     print "Hello!\n";



Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About