Mark J. Reed:
> Aaron Sherman:
>> Proposal: A sigil followed by [...] is always a composer for that
type.
>>
>> %[...] - Hash. Unicode: ?...?
>> @[...] - Array. Unicode: [...]
>> ? - Seq. Unicode: ?...?
>> &[...] - Code. Unicode: ?...?
>> |[...] -
Aaron Sherman wrote:
(updated based on followup conversations)
Proposal: A sigil followed by [...] is always a composer for that type.
%[...]- Hash.
@[...]- Array.
&[...]- Code.
|[...]- Capture. Identical to \(...).
$[...]- Scalar. Like item(...), but fo
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 10/5/06, Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proposal: A sigil followed by [...] is always a composer for that type.
%[...] - Hash. Unicode: ⦃...⦄
@[...] - Array. Unicode: [...]
? - Seq. Unicode: ⎣...⎤
&[...] - Code. Unicode:
On 10/5/06, Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proposal: A sigil followed by [...] is always a composer for that type.
%[...] - Hash. Unicode: ⦃...⦄
@[...] - Array. Unicode: [...]
? - Seq. Unicode: ⎣...⎤
&[...] - Code. Unicode: ⦕...⦖
|[...]
Aaron Sherman wrote:
Proposal: A sigil followed by [...] is always a composer for that type.
%[...]- Hash. Unicode: ⦃...⦄
@[...]- Array. Unicode: [...]
...
I left out ::, which is probably a mistake. Part of the elegance of
this, IMHO, is that it behaves the same for all sig
