在 Jun 11, 2007 5:10 AM 時，Jonathan Lang 寫到：
A variation of chaining associativity gets
used, with the "chaining rule" being '$v1 op1 $v2 // $v1 op2 $v3'
instead of '$v1 op1 $v2 && $v2 op2 $v3', as is the case for comparison
chaining.
But wouldn't that make:
True ?? undef !! Moose;
evaluate
Rereading A03, I ran across the original reasoning behind why Perl 5's
'?:' trinary operator became '?? ::' first, and then '?? !!'. Three
reasons were given:
* the '?' and ':' tokens are far too broadly useful to be gobbled up
by the trinary operator.
* the doubled symbols bring to mind the sh
