"Pense, Joachim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>
>>I *think* you can't do that as written. However, you can disambiguate
>>with
>>
>> %some_nested_hash{very_long_descriptive_key}
>> .{another_key}
>> ...
>> .{last_key}
>>
>>The '.' operator is optional in cases where there's no ambiguity, when
>>you have intervening spaces things start to get ambiguous, so use an
>>explicit '.'
>
> I like this one. This would IMO improve the readability in the discussed
> case.
>
> Speaking about the dot operator, I do not favor the perl6 idea of replacing
> it by the underscore. Undescore is a letter is a letter.
So is 'x', but that's used as an operator.
You are *so* not going to get it changed back. I've recently written a
largish chunk of perl6ish code and the dot operator is just
so... nice; to the extent that I'm having a hard time not using it in
my perl 5 code now. The same goes for the new //, which is just
lovely.
But then, I rarely use the string concatenation dot operator by itself
(I use it quite often as '.=' though), and I use the
methodcall/deref/arrow operator all the time. So perl 6 gives me a
common operator that I can type in one stroke without having to use
shift. '->' meanwhile is two keystrokes, one of which is a chord.c
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
