Re: ~ for concat / negation (Re: The Perl 6 Emulator)
> In summary: > >1. I don't like ~ for concat > >2. But if it does become concat, then we still > shouldn't > change ~'s current unary meaning > > > Thanks for listening. > > -Nate I agree completely. However, this is no longer really a topic for -internals, it's really a purely language thing. -- BKS __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: ~ for concat / negation (Re: The Perl 6 Emulator)
At 05:17 AM 6/22/2001 -0700, Benjamin Stuhl wrote: > > In summary: > > > >1. I don't like ~ for concat > > > >2. But if it does become concat, then we still > > shouldn't > > change ~'s current unary meaning > > > > > > Thanks for listening. > > > > -Nate > >I agree completely. However, this is no longer really a >topic for -internals, it's really a purely language thing. More importantly, it never really was a topic for -internals. Punctiation's a strictly cosmetic issue. :) Dan --"it's like this"--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: ~ for concat / negation (Re: The Perl 6 Emulator)
From: "Nathan Wiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 4:41 PM Subject: ~ for concat / negation (Re: The Perl 6 Emulator) > Does anyone else see a problem with =~ ? Plus, it makes the > pre-plus-concat that many desire impossible, since =~ is taken. God, yes. I constantly have problems with ~= vs. =~; this is only helped by the fact that =~ is normaly a syntax error. (It isn't when you use a qx//ed regex, which I don't do often.) > In summary: >1. I don't like ~ for concat >2. But if it does become concat, then we still shouldn't > change ~'s current unary meaning I 100% agree. It's shenanagnins like this that make perl people look like fringe wackos. I still fail to see why "." is such an advantage over ->. The only real benifit I see is typing ease, and -> isn't that hard to type. That's what editor macros are for. It's rather unfornate that we've run out of characters to use for operators, but we've got to deal with it better then flipping around operators willy-nilly. -=- James Mastros
