TSA wrote:
> I *still* don't understand the problem this long dot is trying
> to solve.
It's trying to solve the fundamental ambiguity of:
foo .bar
Which might be:
foo().bar
or might be:
foo(.bar)
The way we solved it is by saying that, anywhere a term is expected, a
sequence
> I *still* don't understand the problem this long dot is trying to
> solve.
I'm a bit with you, there. I can see why you might want to do
$query
.fetchrow($i)
.selectcolumn($j)
.say;
rather than
$query.
fetchrow($i).
selectcolumn($j).
say;
but surely
$query.
.fetchrow($i).
.selectcolumn($j).
On Wednesday 12 April 2006 00:06, TSa wrote:
> Doesn't that discontinuity devalue the long dot? Its purpose is
> alignment in the first palce. For a one char diff in length one
> now needs
>
> foo. .bar;
> self. .bar;
>
> instead of
>
> foo .bar;
> self.bar;
Or even:
fo
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 12:41:30PM +0200, TSa wrote:
: I'm unsure what the outcome of the recent long dot discussions is
: as far as the range operator is concerned.
.. is always the range operator. The "dot wedge" just has a discontinuity
in it there. I can't think o
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 12:41:30PM +0200, TSa wrote:
: I'm unsure what the outcome of the recent long dot discussions is
: as far as the range operator is concerned.
.. is always the range operator. The "dot wedge" just has a discontinuity
in it there. I can't think of any wedgey applications th
