TSA wrote:
> I *still* don't understand the problem this long dot is trying
> to solve.
It's trying to solve the fundamental ambiguity of:
foo .bar
Which might be:
foo().bar
or might be:
foo(.bar)
The way we solved it is by saying that, anywhere a term is expected, a
sequence
> I *still* don't understand the problem this long dot is trying to
> solve.
I'm a bit with you, there. I can see why you might want to do
$query
.fetchrow($i)
.selectcolumn($j)
.say;
rather than
$query.
fetchrow($i).
selectcolumn($j).
say;
but surely
$query.
.fetchrow($i).
.selectcolumn($j).
On Wednesday 12 April 2006 00:06, TSa wrote:
> Doesn't that discontinuity devalue the long dot? Its purpose is
> alignment in the first palce. For a one char diff in length one
> now needs
>
> foo. .bar;
> self. .bar;
>
> instead of
>
> foo .bar;
> self.bar;
Or even:
fo
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 12:41:30PM +0200, TSa wrote:
: I'm unsure what the outcome of the recent long dot discussions is
: as far as the range operator is concerned.
.. is always the range operator. The "dot wedge" just has a discontinuity
in it there. I can't think o
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 12:41:30PM +0200, TSa wrote:
: I'm unsure what the outcome of the recent long dot discussions is
: as far as the range operator is concerned.
.. is always the range operator. The "dot wedge" just has a discontinuity
in it there. I can't think of any wedgey applications th
HaloO,
I'm unsure what the outcome of the recent long dot discussions is
as far as the range operator is concerned. Since the whole point
of the long dot is to support alignment styles the following cases
shouldn't mean different things:
foobar #0 single call to foobar (OK, that is diffe
