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

    $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.


Reply via email to