John Siracusa skribis 2005-06-18 19:55 (-0400):
>       ./method()  ./:method()
>       [EMAIL PROTECTED]()  .@:method()
>       .>method()  .>:method()
>       .-method()  .-:method()
>       ./method()  ./:method() # worst

Why exactly is the slash not acceptable for you? Almost everyone has
said they like it. I personally find ./method prettier and easier to
type than any of the alternatives.

> I was also thinking about putting something before the . instead of after
> it.  That actually makes more sense as a location for a syntax for an
> implicit invocant, since the invocant would come before the . too.

It's not "implicit invocant". You're not selecting a second default (the
first being $_).

The slash does not represent $?SELF.

And there is no such thing as $object./method.

Instead, see ./ as a whole.

I agree that the dot makes it look like .:, .+, .=, but anything without
the dot is practically impossible because we're out of characters. ^ is
the only single-character possibility. Many people have said to dislike
^method, some have said to like it. 

And if you're using two characters, ./ is a good one because it's easy
to type, good looking and looks familiar (and can thus get a mnemonic,
even if the metaphor is far fetched).

> Unfortunately, a that syntax is used for member variables and such, so the
> usual sigils are out ($ @ %  &), and the rest start to look like unary
> operators on method calls implicitly made on $_ (e.g., -.method())

-.method should return -5 if .method returns 5. Minus in term position
is already taken. Please refer to the "available operator characters"
thread: we have only ^ we can reliably use without shuffling other
things around or using whitespace.

> It was a tough battle for last place, but in the end I think - even is a
> nicer placeholder for an implicit "something."  I just can't get over the
> path-y-ness of ./ (not to mention the division-y-ness)

The pathiness was on purpose. In fact, ./pugs inspired it and a metaphor
between cwd and $?SELF plays for mnemonic.

The divisioniness is something you'll just have to get over. Do you see
any division in /\w+/? Or any addition in $foo +| $bar? Or any
comparison in =>, +>, or <>? Or any price in $var? Or any percentage in
%hash? Or any conjunction in &sub? 


Reply via email to