On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 08:45 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> More info.  ¢T is a scalar variable just like $T, but enforces a
> class view, so you can use it as a class parameter, and pass any
> object to it, but only access the classish aspects of the object.
> The only other big difference is that you can use it in the class
> syntactic slot, so it's legal to say ¢T $x where it would be illegal
> to say $T $x.

Is this necessary?  Isn't putting a variable before another variable
like that in the correct context (subroutine declaration, in this case),
enough to imply that the variable "does Class" ?

While I'm not arguing against another sigil type, I think this would
distinguish it from the other sigils % and @, which are just an implicit
(does Hash) / (does Array), as well as being a part of the unique name,
as I understand it so far.

This makes me wonder which language feature is used to describe sigils
themselves.  Can I define my own sigils with their own type


ps, X11 users, if you have any key bound to "AltGr", then "AltGr" + C
might well give you a ¢ sign without any extra reconfiguration.

Reply via email to