On 7/9/05, Robin Redeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 '.'.
I think we've established now that there are some people who really don't like the ./ syntax, and who really feel like saying so, emphatically. I, for one, like it. // Carl
