On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
Are there others, aside from these: ?
prefix: a unary prefix operator
infix: a binary infix operator
postfix:a binary suffix operator
circumfix: a bracketing operator
Tons. From A12:
[snip]
On the wild side of
Michele Dondi writes:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
Are there others, aside from these: ?
prefix: a unary prefix operator
infix: a binary infix operator
postfix:a binary suffix operator
circumfix: a bracketing operator
Tons. From
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 04:49:33AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Michele Dondi writes:
: On the wild side of things, could there be the possibility of even
: defining new ones?
:
: That's what I meant by:
:
: grammatical_category:postcircumfix
:
: Though it wouldn't be so magical as to just
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 11:46:25AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: With an array
: match, you might find yourself redispatching individual operators in a
: switch statement to provide that kind of specificity.
In particular, macros with is parsed will want to have a place to
hang their special parse
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:39:07PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Matija Papec writes:
Would there be a way to still use simple unquoted hash keys like in old
days ($hash{MYKEY})?
Of course there's a way to do it. This is one of those decisions that I
was against for the longest time,
David Storrs writes:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:39:07PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Matija Papec writes:
Would there be a way to still use simple unquoted hash keys like in old
days ($hash{MYKEY})?
Of course there's a way to do it. This is one of those decisions that I
was
Matija Papec writes:
Would there be a way to still use simple unquoted hash keys like in old
days ($hash{MYKEY})?
imho %hashMYKEY at first sight resembles alien ship from
Independence day. :)
Of course there's a way to do it. This is one of those decisions that I
was against for the
