Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from April 2006
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 12:41:30PM +0200, TSa wrote:
> : I'm unsure what the outcome of the recent long dot discussions is
> : as far as the range operator is concerned.
>
> .. is always the range operator. The "dot wedge" just has a discontinuity
> in it there. I can't think of any wedgey applications that wouldn't work
> about as well by starting the wedge with $x. .y instead of $x.y.
Doesn't that discontinuity devalue the long dot? Its purpose is
alignment in the first palce. For a one char diff in length one
now needs
foo. .bar;
self. .bar;
instead of
foo .bar;
self.bar;
with the rules as before long dot was invented. Why are calls
on the topic so important? Wouldn't it be cleaner to force
a leading zero in numeric literals?
I might be to blind to see it, but could someone give some
examples where the cleanliness of the new parsing is obvious?
I mean compared to the old rules, not counting intended calls
on topic.
--
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next