Uri Guttman wrote:
>
> on the other hand, i use .= all the time and wouldn't like to lose
> it. schwern idea of ce doesn't work for me as only the op= stuff means
> assignment and ce would break that (e for = isn't visual enough).
I was just thinking, too bad that Larry's claiming the colon
currently...
$str = $a : $b : $i + 1;
$a := $b : $c;
$name = $p->param('first') : $p->param('last');
Maybe it's just me, but I like that.
There is, of course, the possibility others have mentioned which is to
make , in a scalar context do something perceived as "more useful":
$str = $a, $b, $i + 1;
$a ,= $b, $c;
$name = $p->param('first'), $p->param('last');
But that second one is a little weird. Plus, this:
($a, $b) = ($1 . $2, $3 . $4);
Is now not possible.
> .= could still be left working as that is a complete separate op from
> method invocation. i can live with most any other form of . including
> none. join is fine for that.
Possible, but my gut reaction is that this could be confusing,
especially assuming that you're going to see "." all over your code
meaning object deref now.
-Nate
