Aaron Sherman wrote:
So hold on to your socks... what about:
@x @y;
This reminds me of AWK's string concatenation behaviour:
print this $1 that $2
This was nice feature at the time, but caused problems down the track
when they wanted to add functions to the language in a subsequent
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:04:48AM +0100, Michele Dondi wrote:
: On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
:
: pipe dreams
:Juerd wondered if he could mix = and == in a sane way. The answer
:appears to be no. Once you bring in == you should stick with it.
:
: Huh?!? It doesn't seem to me
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
Yes, you can certainly intermix them as long as you keep your
precedence straight with parentheses. Though I suppose we could go
as far as to say that = is only scalar assignment, and you have to
use == or == for list assignment. That would
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:04:48AM +0100, Michele Dondi wrote:
: On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
:
: pipe dreams
:Juerd wondered if he could mix = and == in a sane way. The answer
:appears to be no. Once you bring in == you should stick with it.
:
: Huh?!? It
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 06:04, Rod Adams wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
Yes, you can certainly intermix them as long as you keep your
precedence straight with parentheses. Though I suppose we could go
as far as to say that = is only scalar assignment, and you have to
use == or == for list
