>>>>> "Deven" == Deven T Corzine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Deven> As for special-case rules, I believe that my proposed modification would
Deven> REMOVE a special-case semantic rule, at the cost of added complexity at the
Deven> implementation level. (The cost decision of whether that added complexity
Deven> is worthwhile is a separate consideration.)
No, it would break a much higher overriding rule of "left most match
wins". That's at the top of the chart. You're *adding* an exception
to that. Tell me how you can do that without breaking much existing
code.
Deven> And I'd really appreciate it if everyone would refrain from
Deven> suggesting that I don't understand the behavior. I understand
Deven> it fine; I just don't agree with it. In the language of the
Deven> Supreme Court, "I respectfully dissent." Just because I don't
Deven> perfectly agree with the semantics that were chosen doesn't
Deven> mean I don't understand them.
You don't understand the motivation, apparently. That's what I'm
referencing.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
