It just goes to show.. the perl community has already thought of
everything..
-Original Message-
From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 12:41 PM
To: Carissa
Cc: Perl Language
Subject: Re: Operators that keep going and going...
Carissa writes:
> The oth
Carissa writes:
> The other thought that grew from these random neurons firing was whether or
> not it would be possible to have operators that don't actually do anything
> until the data they're dependent upon changes.
I should hope that would be possible, since it's possible in Perl 5!
See perl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carissa) writes:
> Obviously the Perl6 community has accepted that it's possible to have
> variants on operators for things like vectorization. I'm wondering if there
> would be any desire, need or room for what I have so far thought of as
> "persistent" (or "Energizer Bunny") o
No, this isn't a complaint about the number of operators in Perl6. ;-)
Rather I'd just like to throw out an idea (or two) that occurred to me today
somewhere between consciousness and the lack thereof while riding the
Skytrain.
Obviously the Perl6 community has accepted that it's possible to hav
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:01:10 -0800 Larry Wall wrote:
>It's really a pity that question mark is already so overloaded with
>boolean connotations, because
>
>$dog? .bark
>
>would really be the best postfix operator in ASCII for this.
>People would probably end up writing
>
>my Dog $spot ?
