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 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robin Redeker