On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:11:16AM +0300, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
> But I recently read this on irc:
>
> 2009-03-12
> 23:16 pugs_svn r25809 | lwall++ | This decrease in consistency on
> the syntactic level is offset by an
> 23:16 pugs_svn r25809 | lwall++ | increase in consistency on the
> semantic level, as suggested by rouso++.
> 23:16 pugs_svn r25809 | lwall++ | (We'd already gotten rid of the
> dot forms of adverbs some time ago,
> 23:16 pugs_svn r25809 | lwall++ | for similar reasons. We just
> didn't quite carry the idea through.)
>
> and then read this:
>
> S03 Changes to Perl5 Operators
> ...
>
> if $filename ~~ :e { say "exists" }
>
> is the same as
>
> if $filename.e { say "exists" }
>
> The 1st form actually translates to the latter form, so the object's
> class decides how to dispatch methods.
>
>
> Is there an inconsistency here?
Different dot form. I was talking about :foo.(), :bar.[] and such,
which were removed from the spec some time ago, and are now actually
gone from STD.pm and t/spec, thanks to your++ bringing it up. :)
Larry
