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

Re: [p5p] proposed perlpod.pod patch

Thread Next
Brad Appleton
February 5, 2000 08:34
Re: [p5p] proposed perlpod.pod patch
Message ID:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 05:20:44AM +0000, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Brad Appleton (lists.p5p):
> >However, I still like C<< ... >> quite a bit better than all the other
> >proposals (with C<: ... :> a close second). 
> And if we want to talk about the >> operator?

You tell me. If you don't like it, come up with a proposal. The original
proposal here came from Larry (not me) so there;s no reason why some
other proposal can't come from someone else either. I agree it would be
nice if whatever is decided could handle *everything* but I don't think
that is a requirement, just a goal. For the cases it doesn't handle you
are still no worse off than you were before using E<gt>.

I could allow both <: :> and << >>, which would let you deal with the
'>>' operator (but it would still change the meaning of C<< 0>.
Brad Appleton <>
  "And miles to go before I sleep." -- Robert Frost

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