On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 04:31:08PM +0200, Thomas Sandla▀ wrote:
: 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

Yes.

: &foo  .<signature>  # OK?

Yes, unless we take Luke's suggestion.

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

Yes, UWTLS.

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

Yes, UWTLS.

: Whitespace before the : is also not allowed, or is it?
: 
: &infix : .<operator> .<signature>

Not allowed, EIWTLS.  :-)

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

Indeed, EIWTLS.

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

Neither, it would be a siglet that declares a scalar variable where
a simple Scalar would do, I think.

: &foo<$bar> = sub ... # ... here means appropriate def, not the yada op
: 
: or just with
: 
: &foo<$bar> := sub ...?

I think we should just say "no" at that point.

Larry

Reply via email to