I would like to suggest that we define:
multi sub *infix:+(...) {...}
Will always generate a warning (not just for C, but for any
operator) if used outside of a class definition or if used inside a
class definition where the current class does not appear in the list of
parameters.
That i
Hurrah, even more use of «». But that is okay, as I have nearly half of
my terminals configured now, so that I can input and view them.
I don't understand why it is needed, though. Why wasn't infix:+ good
enough?
infix:«+» and infix:{'+'} are more linenoise, and IMHO it's far from
elegant.
Juer
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 12:32:11AM +0100, Juerd wrote:
> Hurrah, even more use of ÂÂ. But that is okay, as I have nearly half of
> my terminals configured now, so that I can input and view them.
Excellent! As soon as you have the other half configured you'll be
ready for perl6 (and by that time i
On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 06:19:05PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: It eliminates the hackish division of circumfix operators by making
: each side explicit. This is an improvement if you ask me.
More importantly, it avoids having to enumerate a list of characters
that have to be backslashed.
On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 12:40:45PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: I would like to suggest that we define:
:
: multi sub *infix:+(...) {...}
:
: Will always generate a warning (not just for C, but for any
: operator) if used outside of a class definition or if used inside a
: class definition
