Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
So why not
$object!method(foo, bar);
On 26 Apr 2001 23:19:49 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
$bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call
$bar = method $obj()
would be more consistent with perl's current
$object = new Class()
syntax.
--
Bart.
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 26 Apr 2001 23:19:49 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
$bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call
$bar = method $obj()
would be more consistent with perl's current
$object = new Class()
syntax.
Yes, well, some people want to get rid
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about borrowing from Objective C?
[$object method(foo, bar)];
How do you create an anonymous
the idea of a dereference operator dumbfounds lots
of folks. What's an object got to do with a reference, much less a
pointer? A p5 object is very confusing to others for this reason, and so
is the syntax.
So you want a method invocation syntax that doesn't remind people of
references.
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
So why not
$object!method(foo, bar);
In my opinion, because it doesn't provide sufficient visual
distinction between $object and method().
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
So why not
$object!method(foo, bar);
In my opinion, because it doesn't provide sufficient
Lateur; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Curious: - vs .
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
So why not
$object!method(foo, bar);
In my
I'm just gonna post this, then back off and listen (been yapping too
much...)
The previous discussions about string concat and how to replace . have
revealed that people are somewhat divided over whether replacing - with
. is actually good thing or not.
I'm just curious what the arguments for
Nathan Wiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- C compatibility. One of Perl's great strengths
over other HLL's is C compatibility. Though
this is still arguably not as good as it can be,
why distance ourselves from the language we're
trying to interact with?
You're
10 matches
Mail list logo
