Markus Laker schreef:
If I've got this right:
mangle $foo :a;# mangle($foo, a = 1);
mangle $foo: a;# $foo.mangle(a());
So these --
mangle $foo:a;
mangle $foo : a;
are ambiguous and, as far as I can tell from the synopses, undefined.
So what's the rule: that indirect-object
Visually, I interpret :a as a token unto itself, though that's
probably Ruby's fault. That interpretation would man that the
dual-whitespace version would have to be an indirect object.
I would argue for disallowing the all-jammed-together case, lest we
run into longest-match arguments where
On 10/7/07, Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would argue for disallowing the all-jammed-together case, lest we
run into longest-match arguments where foobar:baz is foobar: baz
but foo:barbaz is foo :barbaz. Yuck.
Uh, that doesn't make sense. Longest match arguments are leftmost, so
if
