>
> I've been thinking about that. One interesting ramification of
> the current matching rule is that you could say either of:
>
>"foo".io ~~ :r :x
>
> or
>
>"foo" ~~ :io(:r :x)
>
> where .io is whatever your "casting" method of choice is for turning
> a string into an object with the cor
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 05:49:54PM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: I'm sure this has been hashed out somewhere I wasn't looking, but i
: would really prefer for pathname ops not to be mixed in to the Str
: class. Maybe they could be put in a Pathname subclass of Str, with a
: simple literal syntax or
On 2008 Nov 7, at 17:49, Mark J. Reed wrote:
I'm sure this has been hashed out somewhere I wasn't looking, but i
would really prefer for pathname ops not to be mixed in to the Str
class. Maybe they could be put in a Pathname subclass of Str, with a
simple literal syntax or short unary operator t
