On 6/17/05 10:56 PM, David Storrs wrote:
> I'm not fond of .:: because I don't think it's sufficiently visually
> distinct from .:.
Hm, let's look at it:
method total(...)
{
.::sanity_check();
return .:value_one() + .:value_two();
}
Maybe lined up?
.::internal_value();
.:public_value();
I don't mind it, dots and all. I also think the .:: is quickly identifiable
as "thicker" than .: even at a glance. YMMV.
> I don't have a better suggestion...but that's mostly because I
> dislike this entire concept of secondary sigils. I already get to
> have the "Perl is line noise!" conversation _way_ too often...I don't
> feel that we need to give the trolls more ammunition.
I think $ is way more objectionable to the lily-white non-Perl heathens, but
I don't really care about them either way. I'm just saying ./ screams "file
path" to me, or maybe even "typo-ed Java/C++ comment" or something.
Certainly not "method invocation" or "implicit invocant." The .: thing,
OTOH, totally works for me and I've always liked it. I'm just trying to
stretch it to cover both public and private. Maybe there's something better
than both.
(You know, if I had a nickel for every minute I've spent staring at my
keyboard's key caps while reading the p6 lists over the years...)
-John
