> "MJR" == Mark J Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MJR> On 2003-01-21 at 11:09:21, Thom Boyer wrote:
>> One of the most... er, *interesting*, dodges I've seen in this area
>> is the one used by Squeak (a Smalltalk variant). Squeak spells
>> assignment with an underscore ("_"), but the
; > sub log _ onto($user; &_ ; $machine) { ... }
> > sub log _ to($message; &_ ; $stream) { ... }
>
> which is a recycling of Smalltalk's "inject:into:"-style operators. I
> have
> to admit that I *like* the idea of being able to define those
> kinds[1] of
> operators; they can really add to the clarity of the code. I just
> don't want
> to have to write the parser!
> [1] What *do* you call this style of operator -- intermingled-fix?
>
> Looks like we've got some Smalltalk fans here. What say we start a
> new
> mailing list for designing Perltalk? :-)
I can't even smell Spalltalk.
=Austin
Thom Boyer wrote:
> Smylers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> > And an alternative spelling for the assignment operator[*0] doesn't
> > strike me as something Perl is really missing:
> >
> > $msg <~ 'Hello there';
> > $msg = 'Hello there';
>
> I still remember the first time I saw a com
On 2003-01-21 at 11:09:21, Thom Boyer wrote:
> One of the most... er, *interesting*, dodges I've seen in this area is the
> one used by Squeak (a Smalltalk variant). Squeak spells assignment with an
> underscore ("_"), but the Squeak system *draws* it as a left-pointing arrow.
There's a history beh
inject:into:"-style operators. I have
to admit that I *like* the idea of being able to define those kinds[1] of
operators; they can really add to the clarity of the code. I just don't want
to have to write the parser!
[1] What *do* you call this style of operator -- intermingled-fix?
Looks like we've got some Smalltalk fans here. What say we start a new
mailing list for designing Perltalk? :-)
=thom
Riker: "They were just sucked into space."
Data: "Blown, sir."
Riker: "Sorry, Data."
Data: "Common mistake, sir."
(The Naked Now)
