On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 10:59:07PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> So what about the possibility of user-defined q[a-z]// (using a letter that
> hadn't already been taken), where you get to specify the actions of =~ and
> probably more operators? Sounds like it has a lot in common with operator
> overloading - maybe even just an extension to overload.pm?
Sounds exactly like operator overloading. I think that user-defined
qX is a red herring though because we already have user defined
subroutines and the quotators are essentially that. We just need a
way to overload the binding operator (I didn't see it mentioned in
a quick skim of overload.pm) so that
THING =~ OTHER_THING
is translated to
bind(THING,OTHER_THING)
with bind() having user-defined semantics.
I think Damian has an RFC in-the-works on operator overloading that
will address this.
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
