Okay, then: @foo = @( @a + @b ); # @(), $(), and %() set context. Easier to identify the operators, and little or no question about the context... --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen P. Potter writes: > : Maybe this is a crazy (or stupid) idea, but why couldn't we use the > $, @, > : and % characters? > : > : @foo = @a @+ @b; # element by element add > > Because it's difficult to tell the operators from the terms visually. > > Larry ===== Austin Hastings Global Services Consultant Continuus Software Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
- Re: Tying & Overloading Nathan Torkington
- Re: Tying & Overloading Graham Barr
- Re: Tying & Overloading John Porter
- Re: Tying & Overloading Larry Wall
- Re: Tying & Overloading John Porter
- Re: Tying & Overloading Dan Sugalski
- Re: Tying & Overloading John Porter
- Re: Tying & Overloading Dan Sugalski
- Re: Tying & Overloading John Porter
- Re: Tying & Overloading Dan Sugalski
- Re: Tying & Overloading Austin Hastings
- Re: Tying & Overloading Glenn Linderman
- Re: Tying & Overloading Larry Wall
- Re: Tying & Overloading Simon Cozens
- Re: Tying & Overloading Larry Wall
- Re: Tying & Overloading John Siracusa
- Re: Tying & Overloading Larry Wall
- Re: Tying & Overloading Larry Wall
- Re: Tying & Overloading Nathan Wiger
- Re: Tying & Overloading Larry Wall
- Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Nathan Wiger