Now, just to mess with your head a bit ;)
could a case operator be overloadable?
I know the conditional operator currently cannot be overloaded,
but it seems it should be possible. difficulty is another thing though.
Greg London
went through the archives about RFC22 "builtin switch statement".
didn't see any mention of this, thought I'd throw it in there to see
how it was recieved.
I was thinking that the switch statement could possibly be expanded
to also behave as an operator and not just a control statement.
i.e. the
(voice over)
When we last left our heroes,
Dan Sugalski-Walker , Master Larry Wall
Damian-3P0, and FurB-D2
were on their way to find a fast ship.
With the plans for perl 6 in the memory banks of FurB-D2,
they were going to the Monterey System to announce the
start of Perl 6 and to marshal togethe
Dan wrote:
>At 09:12 AM 8/25/00 -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
>> As you say, 200 lines isn't much. But combine that with the IPC, the
>>environment, the system, etc it all adds up.
>
>Not to much, though. We've been down this road for perl 5. You'd be
>surprised at how little code gets remove
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm picturing a WAP-enabled cellular furbie with
> an R2D2-style projector thingie for the video.
> It's not a pretty sight...
"Help us Lawrence Wall, you're our only hope..." bzzp!
"Help us Lawrence Wall, you're our only hope..." bzzp!
"Help us Lawr
Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
=
=At 11:26 AM 8/23/00 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
=
=>I expect that we'll get more compile-time benefit from
=>
=> my HASH sub foo {
=> ...
=> }
=>
=> %bar = foo();
=
=So how would you fill in the type in:
=
=my TYPE sub foo {
= ...
=
J. David Blackstone wrote:
> I always treat the return value of time() as a black-box value. I
>can perform specific actions on it, such as feeding it to localtime()
>or adding relative time intervals to it, such as a year of seconds.
>But I do not allow myself to look at that value. I was ki
Jonathan wrote:
>
>On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 09:45:55AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>> I don't know about this. Sounds cool, but I think we should stick to
>> something that somebody somewhere uses already. Of course, something
>> standard like 0 AD isn't bad.
>
>Standard for whom? I bet there are
