Larry~ On 4/6/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 01:58:55PM -0400, Matt Fowles wrote: > : All~ > : > : I just noticed something claiming that C<$a. foo()> is actually > : C<$a.foo()> (a method call on C<$a>) and that C<$a .foo()> is actually > : C<$a $_.foo()> (likely a syntax error). > : > : When did this change? Why did this change? > > It changed at the last hackathon, but is still being debated, mostly > on #perl6. The current S02 "early dot" rule is likely being abandoned, > but we don't know for what yet. The reason is that term/operator > lexer state is interacting badly with inconsistent retroactive > whitespace cancellation. > > : Also, I liked it better when C<$a .foo()> was a method call on C<$a>. > > Sure, that one might be obvious, but quick, tell me what these mean: > > say .bar > say .() > say .1 > when .bar > when .() > when .1 > foo .bar > foo .() > foo .1 > .foo .bar > .foo .() > .foo .1 > > I'd rather have a rule you don't have to think about so hard. To me > that implies something simple that let's you put whitespace *into* > a postfix without violating the "postfixes don't take preceding > whitespace" rule.
That makes a good deal of sense. I don't know what I would like more, so I guess that I will wait till a more firm consensus is reached. Matt -- "Computer Science is merely the post-Turing Decline of Formal Systems Theory." -Stan Kelly-Bootle, The Devil's DP Dictionary
