Thus it was written in the epistle of David Nicol, > Michael G Schwern wrote: > > > Binary ; > > > > This worries me. Giving ; two meanings makes basic language parsing > > harder, which would be fine if there was a big payoff, but there's > > not. Just making shorthand for [[1,2,3],[4,5,6]] doesn't seem worth > > it. What am I missing here? > > What you might be missing here (or what I might be improperly getting here) > is that a good way to implement this sort of thing is with an exception > handling parser. The end-of-statement-while-brackets-are-open error > can be trapped and turned into More Useful Syntax.
What worries me is that the end-of-statement-while-brackets-are-open error would be trapped and turned into a More Serious Problem. If, perchance, I'm not the only one to have Accidentally Omitted a Closing Bracket, there may be someone out there who prefers having the compiler object to the missing bracket rather than have it attempt to run the code, assuming that the ; is really *not* the end of the statement. 'Course, it has long been held that *any* random sequence of characters is a valid Perl program, and this makes that a little more true. Ted -- Ted Ashton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | From the Tom Swifty collection: Southern Adventist University | "It doesn't seem one should sing nonsense Deep thought to be found at | syllables instead of words," said Ward http://www.southern.edu/~ashted | Swingle dubiously.
