On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:02:50 +0100, Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 01:49:36PM +0200, Dav?? Helgason wrote:
> > This wouldn't mean that anyone is thinking of getting us object
> > dot-syntax, now would it?
>
> <whistle>
>
> > After giving it a thought, it seems that it can _mostly_ be
> > disambiguated from the concatenation operator. Whatever mostly means.
>
> Or we change the concatenation operator.
>
> $a = $b & $c; # Do people really use Perl for bit fiddling?
ABSOLUTELY!
Ever done vec? It's even well documented what stringwise & should do. (Though I
have to admit it's not DWIM)
> $a = $b # $c; /* Urgh */
>
> $a = $b ~ $c; # Mmm!
>
> I like that last one a lot, because it doesn't disturb anything.
> You'd have to alter ~'s precedence so that binary ~ is higher
> than named unary operators. (It's print($a~$b), not print $a (~b).)
--
H.Merijn Brand Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://www.amsterdam.pm.org/)
using perl-5.6.1, 5.7.1 & 623 on HP-UX 10.20 & 11.00, AIX 4.2, AIX 4.3,
WinNT 4, Win2K pro & WinCE 2.11 often with Tk800.022 &/| DBD-Unify
ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/languages/perl/CPAN/authors/id/H/HM/HMBRAND/
