That'll be this then:
<http://www.perl.com/tchrist/defop/defconfaq.html>
8)
Chris
On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 05:23:46PM +0100, Dave Thorn wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 06:20:30PM +0200, Newton, Philip wrote:
> > Dave Thorn wrote:
> > > anyone got a link to the article explaining why we won't get
> > > the hook-hook operator?
> >
> > *The* article? I don't know whether there's any particular article saying
> > why we won't get it. See perl5-porters _passim_ for discussion.
>
> ah, there was one on perl.com, used to be linked to in a sidebar
> for a long time until it got upgraded.
>
> "Why we don't want or need the hook-hook operator" or something[1]
>
>
> [1] I could be veyr wrong on this point
>
> --
> dave thorn | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
Chris Carline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://chris.carline.org/
GnuPG: 1024D/57B5CB20 | 5E85 207A 89D8 E097 0C0F FD4C 871A CE15 57B5 CB20
PGP signature
