Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 09 Oct 2001 11:22:02 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>
> >Does the change from ?: to ??:: mean that we can have '?' as a valid
> >character in an identifier?
>
> I'm sure it won't be. The reasoning for replacing "?" with "??" is that
> "?" is worth too m
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:22:02AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Does the change from ?: to ??:: mean that we can have '?' as a valid
> > character in an identifier? I quite like the ruby/scheme idiom of
> > having boolean methods ending in a quest
On 09 Oct 2001 11:22:02 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Does the change from ?: to ??:: mean that we can have '?' as a valid
>character in an identifier?
I'm sure it won't be. The reasoning for replacing "?" with "??" is that
"?" is worth too much as a single character symbol, to sacrifice it on
su
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 04:18:31PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:22:02AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Does the change from ?: to ??:: mean that we can have '?' as a valid
> > character in an identifier? I quite like the ruby/scheme idiom of
> > having boolean metho
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:22:02AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Does the change from ?: to ??:: mean that we can have '?' as a valid
> character in an identifier? I quite like the ruby/scheme idiom of
> having boolean methods ending in a question mark. eg:
>
> sub is_visible? {...}
I was gon
Does the change from ?: to ??:: mean that we can have '?' as a valid
character in an identifier? I quite like the ruby/scheme idiom of
having boolean methods ending in a question mark. eg:
sub is_visible? {...}
Of course, I'm not going to be even vaguely upset if this is still not
allowed, b
