Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2000
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 <bradapp@enteract.com> http://www.enteract.com/~bradapp/ "And miles to go before I sleep." -- Robert FrostThread Next