On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 05:37:54PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Juerd writes:
: > What happens to the flip flop operator? Will .. in scalar context
: > remain the same? What comes in place of ...? (An adverb?)
:
: The scalar range operator was always a weird one for me, but that isn't
: to say that it hasn't been put to good use by wizards. I wouldn't be
: surprised if it stayed. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if
: it left.
It's leaving syntactically but not semantically.
: Anyway, to answer what I _do_ know, isn't .. exactly the same as ... in
: Perl 5? That was my impression, at least (I've never used the latter in
: practice, but my little test script seems to work).
I think you'll find there's a difference between
perl -ne 'print if 2..2';
perl -ne 'print if 2...2';
But as they say: "When all else fails, read the directions." :-)
: Anyway, in Perl 6, list .. is your good old Perl 5 .. with lazy
: semantics.
Yes, but it has to do that in scalar position now too, since it constructs
a lazy Range object. That's the strongest argument for changing Perl 5's
flipflop to some other syntax, actually. (I thought about putting it into
the other message I was composing, except I was driving at the time I
thought of it, and forgot it by the time I got back to the house. But hey,
I'm getting old enough I can start blaming it on senility, right?)
Larry
