how about just juxtaposing? (Re: Sane + string concat proposal)

2001-04-24 Thread Jarkko Hietaniemi
I think the magical + isn't going to work. Has the road of just putting things next to each other been extensively tried? It works for Awk... juxtapose, the Famous Invisible Perl Operator. Perl 5 Perl 6 $a = $b . $c; $a = $b $c; # or $b$c

Re: how about just juxtaposing? (Re: Sane + string concat proposal)

2001-04-24 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 02:32:39PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: Has the road of just putting things next to each other been extensively tried? It works for Awk... juxtapose, the Famous Invisible Perl Operator. Perl 5 Perl 6 $a = $b . $c; $a =

Re: how about just juxtaposing? (Re: Sane + string concat proposal)

2001-04-24 Thread Casey West
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 08:42:10PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote: : On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 02:32:39PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: : Has the road of just putting things next to each other been extensively : tried? It works for Awk... juxtapose, the Famous Invisible Perl : Operator. :

Re: how about just juxtaposing? (Re: Sane + string concat proposal)

2001-04-24 Thread Edward Peschko
This is going to make finding syntax errors a bit difficult, as many will simply become concatination operators. Consider print Foo foo(bar); Did the author forget a semi-colon, or did they intend to concatinate there? Also, consider this... *sigh*. Ok, how about:

Re: how about just juxtaposing? (Re: Sane + string concat proposal)

2001-04-24 Thread David L. Nicol
Ah.. I knew I'd find the thread in here somewhere. The problems go away if you allow white space to signify. [...] Consider print Foo foo(bar); Did the author forget a semi-colon, or did they intend to concatinate there? Also, consider this... they forgot a