On 9/21/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A method never takes arguments unless you use : or (), so those are
all infix.
Well, all righty then. Yay for unambiguity! Or disambiguation. Or
nonambiguosity. Or whatever...
The design team worked Really Hard to get rid of that particula
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 12:16:26PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: Which means that argumentless subroutine calls will presumably be rare
: in P6 code, but what about methods? Methods with no arguments (apart
: from the invocant) will always be commonplace, and it seems to me that
: you have exactly
On 9/21/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: note how the ambiguity of the following are resolved:
:
: a|$b
: a | $b
: a |$b
:
Don't think so. The situation is exactly analogous to:
a%$b
a % $b
a %$b
The cultural ambiguity is also being reduced insofar as we're trying
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:29:57AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: I'll read that as "conversation terminated".
The conversation is never terminated. However, every now and then I
make feeble attempts to be decisive. :)
: Can you please update S03's "Junctive operators" section to note how the
:
