>THING =~ OTHER_THING
>
> is translated to
>
>bind(THING,OTHER_THING)
>
> with bind() having user-defined semantics.
>
> I think Damian has an RFC in-the-works on operator overloading that
> will address this.
That one's been passed to brian d foy and (if
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> We just need a
> way to overload the binding operator (I didn't see it mentioned in
> a quick skim of overload.pm) so that
>
> THING =~ OTHER_THING
>
> is translated to
>
> bind(THING,OTHER_THING)
>
> with bind() having user-defined semantics.
Not
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 10:59:07PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> So what about the possibility of user-defined q[a-z]// (using a letter that
> hadn't already been taken), where you get to specify the actions of =~ and
> probably more operators? Sounds like it has a lot in common with operator
>
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> So what about the possibility of user-defined q[a-z]// (using a letter that
> hadn't already been taken), where you get to specify the actions of =~ and
> probably more operators? Sounds like it has a lot in common with operator
> overloading - maybe even just an extens
