Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> 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.
Not to continue to toot my own horn; but RFC139 addresses
the same issue space (:-) in a somewhat different way.
It considers the "binding operator" to be a kind of method
invocator, similar to ->, but with a different concept of
what an "object" is on its left-hand side.
If you have any thoughts on my approach, I'd be interested
in hearing them.
--
John Porter
We're building the house of the future together.
