On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 04:31:08PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß 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
