On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 07:36:10AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : > Why does it have to be some sugared syntax when you can just simple  
> : > name it in the parameter list?
> : 
> : Yes, but there seem to be quite some people who want
> : a 'cool' syntax for it. (ie. ./method ()).
> I wasn't thinking 'cool', I was thinking 'visually distinctive and
> mnemonic'.  I actually think o. is cooler.

Yes, i would like o. more too. At least it doesn't introduce
a completly meaningless '/' preceded by a '.'.


Robin Redeker

Reply via email to