Re: if not C<,> then what?

[David Storrs]

On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 04:14:37PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Juerd wrote:
> 
> If you're really enamoured with the infix operator syntax, consider this
> possibility: 
> 
>   sub infix:-> ($before, $after) {
>     $before;       # is this line redundant?  
>     return $after;
>   }
>   print $a -> $b -> $c;   # prints $c
> 
> where C[->] is read as "followed by".  You could even set up a
> right-to-left version, C[<-], but why bother?  

You could do this, but you'd be overriding the current meaning of 
C<< -> >> as "pointy sub".

You could also use, 'before':

    #  Recipe for (un)holy water that will irk the altar's god.    
    step_on_altar();
    drop_water($_) before pray() for @water_potions;

OOC, can you define an operator that is made up of alphanumerics, or
only punctuation?  e.g., is this legal?

sub infix:before ( $before, $after ){ ... }

--Dks