On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 10:48:34PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
: No one mentioned that if it wasn't for sigils, many strings would be
: increased, length-wise, to do operator concatentation. If it wasn't for
: that then simple string insertions couldn't be used.
Well, except you can
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Close. I'm thinking added functionality for semicolon alternatives
rather than the replace the semicolon stunt that Semi::Semicolons
pulls. In particular, as long as there's no ambiguity between
prefix:? and postfix:?, I think that it would be quite useful for
postfix:?
On 5/15/07, Dave Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A slightly tangental thought: is the behavior of Cgiven with no block
defined? I.e. is
given $foo { when 1 {...} };
equivalent to
given $foo;
when 1 {...};
Doubtful.
However, I do think that it's useful to be able to treat the rest of
the
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:59:35AM -0700, Dave Whipp wrote:
: Jonathan Lang wrote:
:
: Close. I'm thinking added functionality for semicolon alternatives
: rather than the replace the semicolon stunt that Semi::Semicolons
: pulls. In particular, as long as there's no ambiguity between
:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 01:14:44PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
However, I do think that it's useful to be able to treat the rest of
the current scope as a block (usually with a parameter), for certain
kinds of closure-heavy code.
Maybe this is a case for one of Mr. Lang's custom semicolons with
Larry Wall wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
: A slightly tangental thought: is the behavior of Cgiven with no block
: defined? I.e. is
It would be illegal syntax currently.
As I understand it, the proposal is to say that if the parser finds a
';' where it was expecting to find a control block, it
As I sailed into Shadow, a white bird of my desire came and sat upon my
right shoulder, and I wrote a note and tied it to its leg and sent it on
its way. The note said, I am coming, and it was signed by me.
...
The sun hung low on my left and the winds bellied the sails and
