Markus Peter wrote:
> --On 23.08.2000 4:31 Uhr +0000 Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>
> > The calling syntaces of m()/s() should be consistent with other forms of
> > function call; this should be achieved not by eliminating the traditional
> > C<//> form from m()/s(), but by allowing any function to be called with
> > C<//>.
>
> I'm not so sure what the advantage of that approach is except that you
> could overload m and s (which could also be added to use overload)?
It's not so much overloading as overriding.
If =~ allowed "indirect object" notation as -> does, then we could write
s $str (pat){rep};
and
for ( grok %db /Name/$name/g ) {
> To me, this looks as if this probably has lots of potential for perl poetry
> but not for programming...
To some perl hackers, there is no distinction.
--
John Porter
We're building the house of the future together.
