On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:42:58PM -0500, Allison Randal wrote: > > I like the following, assumed to be within method m1: > > > > ..m2(); # call m2 the same way m1 was called, instance or class > > This has already been semi-rejected. I agree with the reasoning. Not > that it wouldn't be nice to have a way to code the concept, just that > the ".." symbology isn't right for the job. MUA/MTA quoting seems to be getting in the way here - someone's prepending a '.' to avoid sending the SMTP end-of-message sentinel and it's not getting stripped off properly. That was supposed to be a single '.' in front of the m2(). In other words, unary . is the same as binary . with $_ as the LHS, so .m2() would be the same as $_.m2(). Which would have the semantics in my comment above, assuming that the class becomes the topic in static methods.
-- Mark J. REED <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
