Larry Wall wrote:
Yes.  It should complain that = is not a valid type signature.
Any &foo (or &foo:<...>) followed by <...> should be parsed as a single
term selecting the function that MMD would dispatch to given that
type signature.

And I guess it's not allowed to have interspersed whitespace unless one uses the dot forms? And my interpretation as operator <=> needs the whitespace OTOH.

&infix <=> <some words>  # my interpretation of the typo

&foo  .<signature>  # OK?

&infix: .<operator> .<signature>  # OK?

&infix:<operator> .<signature>  # or at least this?

Whitespace before the : is also not allowed, or is it?

&infix : .<operator> .<signature>

The dot forms would allow alignment when dumping a complete multi
with every sig on a seperate line. Or for all infix operators, etc.


Is &foo<$bar> a symbolic access or a syntax error? How about

&foo<$bar> = sub ... # ... here means appropriate def, not the yada op

or just with

&foo<$bar> := sub ...?


Regards, -- TSa (Thomas Sandla▀)



Reply via email to