Eric Roode wrote:
> >
> >What is it about . that seems to inspire allergic reactions in people?
> >Surely it's not the . itself, but the requirement that you fit everything
> >into that one syntactic mold. Perl's not going to do that.
>
> No, more like ". is already used for something". The only reason I have
> seen written out so far for the shift from -> to . and . to <insert op
> here> is: it looks more like other languages. That seems like a whole
> lot of fixing of non-broken syntax.
which is why, back in
http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-all%40perl.org/msg01043.html
Oh, last august, we discussed all this
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and they all say "yodelahihu"
