Author: larry
Date: Tue Apr 24 17:02:17 2007
New Revision: 14379
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S13.pod
Log:
Clarification suggested by TheDamian++
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S13.pod
==============================================================================
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S13.pod (original)
+++ doc/trunk/design/syn/S13.pod Tue Apr 24 17:02:17 2007
@@ -12,9 +12,9 @@
Maintainer: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 2 Nov 2004
- Last Modified: 17 Feb 2007
+ Last Modified: 24 Apr 2007
Number: 13
- Version: 7
+ Version: 8
=head1 Overview
@@ -156,11 +156,26 @@
method @.[ *@@slices ] {...}
method %.{ *@@slices } {...}
-The actual sigil used doesn't matter as long as it's followed by a dot
-and the bracket pair containing the signature. (Note that the angle
-bracket subscripting form C<< .<a b c> >> automatically translates
-itself into a call to C< .{'a','b','c'} >, so defining methods for
-angles is basically useless.)
+The sigil-dot sequence in these short forms autogenerates the
+corresponding public operators, in exactly the same way that
+the sigil-dot in:
+
+ has $.action;
+ has @.sequence;
+ has %.mapping;
+
+autogenerates public accessor methods.
+
+And because it uses the same method-autogeneration mechanism, the
+specific sigil used to specify a short-form postcircumfix operator
+doesn't actually matter...as long as it's followed by a dot and the
+bracket pair containing the signature. (Though it's probably kinder
+to future readers of your code to stick with the "natural" sigil
+for each type of bracket.)
+
+Note that the angle bracket subscripting form C<< .<a b c> >>
+automatically translates itself into a call to C< .{'a','b','c'} >,
+so defining methods for angles is basically useless.
The expected semantics of C<&.()> is that of a type coercion which may
or may not create a new object. So if you say:
