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