[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Larry pondered:
:
: > Perhaps we shouldn't be using ; for this.
:
: That has occurred to me on several occasions but, checking my pockets, I
: find I'm fresh out of spare symbols to replace it with.
:
: We could always use colon, of course ;-)
Well, more likely than that would be double colon. It would stand out
better:
for @a :: @b :: @c -> $a :: $b :: $c { ... }
And it would probably not interfere much with the doubledoubledots
of the ??:: operator. (Certainly less than the ; overloading.)
On the other hand, semicolon works out really nicely within brackets
for multidimensional slices, and the mathematicians like it. And I
don't know how the :: would fit in with other adverbial generalities.
Larry
