On Aug 14, 2004, at 5:52 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
If one goes with a standard method name, we also want to see what it
looks like as an indirect object:
for more $*IN
for iter $*IN
for every $*IN
for read $*IN
for in $*IN
for shift $*IN
Of these, I like C best.
Like I say, all
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 02:12:53PM -0700, Mark Lentczner wrote:
: I apologize if the answers to these questions are in the list
: somewhere, but I can't find any archive of this list that lets me
: search for things like ^..^ or ?&= !
:
: In reviewing the operator precedence table update, I have
I apologize if the answers to these questions are in the list
somewhere, but I can't find any archive of this list that lets me
search for things like ^..^ or ?&= !
In reviewing the operator precedence table update, I have some
questions:
1) What is unary ** ? I assume it is prefix.
2) Did th
Larry Wall writes:
> : > {$foo[$bar]}
> : > {$foo}[$bar]
> :
> : That last example seems to violate the previous stipulation about
> : not following a closure by dereferencers.
>
> That's the point--it isn't a dereferencer. It's literal brackets.
Ah, yes. Sorry -- my mind was determin
