On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 07:36:10AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : > Why does it have to be some sugared syntax when you can just simple
> : > name it in the parameter list?
> : Yes, but there seem to be quite some people who want
> : a 'cool' syntax for it. (ie. ./method ()).
> I wasn't thinking 'cool', I was thinking 'visually distinctive and
> mnemonic'. I actually think o. is cooler.
Yes, i would like o. more too. At least it doesn't introduce
a completly meaningless '/' preceded by a '.'.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]