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