Larry Wall skribis 2006-04-30 9:58 (-0700):
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 05:15:08PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> : Larry indicated that changing the long dot would have to involve
> : changing the first character. The only feasible solution in the "tiny
> : glyphs" section was the backtick. I refrain from explaining why that
> : will widely be considered a bad idea.
> "Only feasible"? I think you guys give up too easily.
... in the "tiny glyphs" section. We could go with larger glyphs, like
\, of course -- it just hadn't been considered yet.
> Actually, there is a postfix \(...), but that wouldn't interfere with
> a \. construct.
There's prefix \, though:
It creates a big difference between
$foo \.bar
and
$foo\ .bar # currently the same thing
But I don't think that's a problem.
> $foo\
> .foo();
I've never liked continuation characters, but I could live with this
limited application.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
