On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:49:12AM -0400, John Porter wrote: > Damian Conway wrote: > > > > Easy. I'll just add a C<thing> operator to Q::S. It would take no > > arguments and return a (lazy?) list of every possible Perl subroutine. > > > > PS: Can you tell whether I'm joking? > > I think you're both joking AND not joking, at the same time. s/at the same/in constant/; # HTH -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
- Do we really need eq? Ed Mills
- Re: Do we really need eq? Nathan Torkington
- Re: Do we really need eq? Spider Boardman
- Re: Do we really need eq? Randal L. Schwartz
- ... as a term Larry Wall
- Re: ... as a term Randal L. Schwartz
- Re: ... as a term Nathan Torkington
- Re: ... as a term skud
- Re: ... as a term Damian Conway
- Re: ... as a term John Porter
- Re: ... as a term Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: ... as a term Damian Conway
- Re: ... as a term Larry Wall
- Re: ... as a term Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: ... as a term John Porter
- Re: ... as a term Larry Wall
- Re: ... as a term John Porter
- Re: ... as a term Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: ... as a term John Porter
- Re: Do we really need eq? Steve Simmons
- Re: Do we really need eq? John Porter