In a message dated Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Damian Conway writes: > One *might* argue that <~ ought to be of higher precedence than ~> > (i.e. that invocants ought to be bound ahead of other arguments). > > If so, then: > > $foo ~> print <~ $*STDERR > > is really: > > $foo ~> print $*STDERR: > > is really: > > $foo ~> print $*STDERR: $foo > > So yes. > > But don't do that!
Well, shades of C++, how about just $*STDERR <~ $foo; or $foo ~> $*STDERR; ? Stylistically, I often find myself needing to embed a complex expression in a print(), and as anyone who's read my articles knows, I really despise parens in normal sub calls (not method calls). Yes, yes, I could do $*STDERR.print() instead, but I'm trying to reduce visual clutter, not resort to a mechanism that requires it :-) Trey -- I'm looking for work. If you need a SAGE Level IV with 10 years Perl, tool development, training, and architecture experience, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm willing to relocate for the right opportunity.
