On 9/20/06, Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
> What we really need is a unary operator that is sugar for [,](=(...)). Just
> don't anyone suggest *. :-)
I was thinking about that. I wonder if [\] would make sense, or is that
just begging to have in-editor parsers fall
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 11:18:09AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: Trey Harris wrote:
: >Might I propose the following normalization:
: >
: >1. .call, method definition call(), and .wrap call all take captures.
:
: >2. .call() and both types of call() all pass on the arguments of
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 11:18:09AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: Trey Harris wrote:
: >Might I propose the following normalization:
: >
: >1. .call, method definition call(), and .wrap call all take captures.
:
: >2. .call() and both types of call() all pass on the arguments of the
: > current s
Trey Harris wrote:
Might I propose the following normalization:
1. .call, method definition call(), and .wrap call all take captures.
2. .call() and both types of call() all pass on the arguments of the
current subroutine.
> 3. To call with no arguments, use .call(\()) and call(\()).
I
