On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:54:07PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:28:05PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: : say $::;
:
: Or you can use a symbolic ref with a constant string:
:
: $::('x y');
:
: The compiler knows it's a constant. And it's even implemented in Pugs.
Hmm, e
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 12:26:52AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 2/7/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > $MY::{'x y'}
: > $MY:: # same thing
: > MY::<$x y> # same thing
:
: Er, aren't we obscuring the meaning of <> a little bit here? I would
: think that
On 2/7/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> $MY::{'x y'}
> $MY:: # same thing
> MY::<$x y> # same thing
Er, aren't we obscuring the meaning of <> a little bit here? I would
think that the following two things would be equivalent:
$My::
$My::{'x','y'}
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:49:36PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
: At 3:28 PM -0800 2/7/06, Larry Wall wrote:
: >say $::;
: >Larry
:
: My mistake. When I read Synopsis 2 I had interpreted the text more
: narrowly than what I was looking for. So for now I retract my
: request.
Well, it's not lik
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:28:05PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: say $::;
Or you can use a symbolic ref with a constant string:
$::('x y');
The compiler knows it's a constant. And it's even implemented in Pugs.
But my thinking on the ::<> form is that it derives from the symbol
table as hash
At 3:28 PM -0800 2/7/06, Larry Wall wrote:
say $::;
Larry
My mistake. When I read Synopsis 2 I had interpreted the text more
narrowly than what I was looking for. So for now I retract my
request.
Pugs still doesn't implement what you indicated though, from my
testing, so I think I'll hav
say $::;
Larry
