On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:22:02AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Does the change from ?: to ??:: mean that we can have '?' as a valid
> character in an identifier? I quite like the ruby/scheme idiom of
> having boolean methods ending in a question mark. eg:
>
> sub is_visible? {...}
I was gonna suggest that pre-Apoc 3 but ran into the same trouble with ?:
Hmm, $obj.meth! is a syntax error, but func! isn't. Damn.
For those of you that don't know, func! is another Ruby idiom that
differentiates between the version of a function that returns it's
results and the one which alters it's arguments in place. So, for
example:
# this would act like the perl5 chomp
my $num_chars = chomp! $string;
# this would leave $string alone and return the chomped string.
my $chomped_string = chomp $string;
Perhaps a little more useful:
# Sort as we know it.
my @sorted = sort @array;
# Sort in place.
sort! @array;
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One
The eye opening delightful morning taste of expired cheese bits in sour milk!
