On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 06:08:55PM -0700, Jon Lang wrote: : In "Question on your last change to S02", Larry Wall wrote: : > (By the way, you'll note the utility of being able to talk about a : > postfix by saying .[], which is one of the reasons we allow the optional : > dot there. :) : : Can I take this as an indication that the rules for postcircumfix : operators are an extension of the rules for postfix operators?
Yes, postcircumfixes are just strange postfixes, syntactically speaking. Semantically they may do strange things such as behave more like macros than operators, of course. Certainly .() is highly magical that way, and maybe subscripts too. Larry
