At 02:52 PM 4/23/2001 +0200, Davíð Helgason wrote:
>"H.Merijn Brand" wrote:
> >
> > > > $a = $b ~ $c; # Mmm!
> > > >
> > > > I like that last one a lot, because it doesn't disturb anything.
> > > > You'd have to alter ~'s precedence so that binary ~ is higher
> > > > than named unary operators. (It's print($a~$b), not print $a (~b).)
> > >
> > > I am not sure I do like the use of ~ here. It does not screan concatenate
> > > to me (but then again neither did . when I started perl)
> > >
> > > I am thinking that maybe it should be a 2 character operator with at
> > > least one of then being + as + is common in many other languages
> > > for doing concatenation.
>
>Which of qw[~ ++ +~ + &] do we dislike the least? Using + would be
>nice, but introduce no end of problems with number/sting behaviour. '&'
>is too much like a certain unpopular language. And there was no end to
>the quabbling :(
What's wrong with something like:
$foo = $a :+ $b;
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
