On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 12:37 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
Michael Lazzaro writes:There were also vaguely threatening proposals to have <<op>> and >>op<<
do slightly different things. I assume that is also dead, and that
<<op>> is (typically) a syntax error.
Ack. No, slightly different things would be a very bad idea.
At the moment, as most of you probably know, they do *very* different things. >>op<< vectorizes the operator, and <<some stuff>> is equivalent to qw{some stuff}.
Sorry, right.
I therefore deduce that the proposal to have, for example, <<+>> mean a different flavor of vectorization than >>+<<, e.g. for these to do different things:
@a >>+<< @b;
@a <<+>> @b;is quite soundly and completely dead.
Excellent. Let us not speak of it again.
MikeL
