> At 02:18 PM 10/4/2001 +1000, Damian Conway wrote: > > > ** Miscellaneous > > > > > > Why 'operator:+' instead of 'operator::+'? (Other than the > > > potential verbosity required to declare operators within a > > > particular package.) I would think it more intuitive to think of > > > 'operator' as a provided package (within every package). > > > > > > Hmm, lexicals. > > > >Yep. Overloaded operators will be inherently lexical (to keep them from > >running amok), so they can't be in packages. > > This is for when we change the parser, right? Overloaded operators > attached to variables will leak out and go wherever they go. > > $foo + $bar > > will call $foo's overloaded add if it has one no matter where $foo's used.
Sorry. I should have been clearer. Dan is, of course, correct. Overloaded operators that are class methods will tag along with their objects as they currently do (as indeed, *all* methods currently do). Overloaded operators that are subroutines will stay firmly fixed in their own lexical scope (as indeed *all* lexical subroutines will). Damian
