On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 06:46:20PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 12:59:54PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: > > > Doesn't ~ look like a piece of string to you? :-) > > It looks like a bitwise op to me, personally. > > That's because every time you've used it in Perl, it's been a bitwise > op. Sapir-Whorf, and all that. Not just Perl. Many other languages use ~ the same as Perl does now. Graham.
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) nick
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Branden
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) John Porter
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Branden
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) John Porter
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Nathan Wiger
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) John Porter
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) David L. Nicol
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Simon Cozens
- Re: Tying & Overloading Graham Barr
- Re: Tying & Overloading Damien Neil
- Re: Tying & Overloading Simon Cozens
- Re: Tying & Overloading Bart Lateur
- Re: Tying & Overloading Stephen P. Potter
- Re: Tying & Overloading Dan Sugalski
- Re: Tying & Overloading David L. Nicol
- Re: Tying & Overloading James Mastros
- Re: Tying & Overloading Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: Tying & Overloading Andy Dougherty
- Re: Tying & Overloading Bart Lateur