Re: ./method <defunct>

What does this have to do with perl6-internals? F-up to p6l.

Matthew Zimmerman skribis 2005-06-21 11:27 (-0400):
> 	                     $self->_fraction * $self->concentration +
>                              $s2->_fraction * $s2->concentration

You can still write it like that, if you declare a name ($self) for the
invocant. Added to Perl is a shortcut, not a replacement.

>                         ./:fraction * ./concentration +
>                         $s2.:fraction * $s2.concentration

That looks silly indeed, and is a good reason for not using ./foo HERE.
It's not a good reason to not have ./foo at all.

> and it gives me the willies.

Then don't use it. You don't have to use it.

> If I have a complicated mathematical expression

If you have anything that is complicated, a verbose version should
always be considered, if only to avoid getting lost in punctuation. This
is not specific to ./foo in any way.

> with method calls in it (which happens a lot for me), the '/' 
> part of './' in particular gives me lots of visual problems.

It is visually much more suited for action than functional use:

    ./foo($bar, $baz);      # beautiful

    print 5 + ./foo($bar);  # ugly

> at the top of my code if I have to, but I want to make one last gasp at 
> getting $Larry / @Larry to reconsider this.

I find "o." absolutily horrifying. But then, that's apparently how you
think of "./", so we have to trust Larry's decision on this. I don't
think further discussing this is really fruitful, as it has already been
discussed more than is good for us.


Juerd
-- 
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html 
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html

• Re: ./method <defunct> by Matthew Zimmerman
• Re: ./method <defunct> by Juerd
• Re: ./method <defunct> by Matthew Zimmerman