Larry Wall writes:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 08:51:33PM -0500, Joe Gottman wrote:
>
> : Great, so
> : $x = foo(), bar();
> : means the same thing as
> : $x = ( foo(), bar() );
>
> No, we haven't changed the relative precedence of assignment and
> comma. I've been tempted to, but I alway
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 08:51:33PM -0500, Joe Gottman wrote:
: Great, so
: $x = foo(), bar();
: means the same thing as
: $x = ( foo(), bar() );
No, we haven't changed the relative precedence of assignment and comma.
I've been tempted to, but I always come back to liking the parens
for vis
- Original Message -
From: "Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Perl6" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 2:51 PM
Subject: [perl] Re: Comma Operator
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 08:12:28PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> : Joe Gottma
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 08:12:28PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Joe Gottman wrote:
: >About a month ago, a thread here suggested that we change the meaning
: > of the comma operator. Currently, in scalar context the expression
: > foo(), bar()
: > means "evaluate foo(), discard the result
Joe Gottman wrote:
>About a month ago, a thread here suggested that we change the meaning
> of the comma operator. Currently, in scalar context the expression
> foo(), bar()
> means "evaluate foo(), discard the result, then return the value of
> bar()".
> It was suggested that this be chan
