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
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 ...?
TSa (Thomas Sandla▀)