Markus Laker schreef:
> If I've got this right:
>
> mangle $foo :a;# mangle($foo, a => 1);
> mangle $foo: a;# $foo.mangle(a());
>
> So these --
>
> mangle $foo:a;
> mangle $foo : a;
>
> are ambiguous and, as far as I can tell from the synopses, undefined.
> So what's the rule: that ind
On 10/7/07, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would argue for disallowing the all-jammed-together case, lest we
> run into longest-match arguments where "foobar:baz" is "foobar: baz"
> but "foo:barbaz" is "foo :barbaz". Yuck.
Uh, that doesn't make sense. Longest match arguments are lef
Visually, I interpret ":a" as a token unto itself, though that's
probably Ruby's fault. That interpretation would man that the
dual-whitespace version would have to be an indirect object.
I would argue for disallowing the all-jammed-together case, lest we
run into longest-match arguments where "f
