Re: RFC 138 (v1) Eliminate =~ operator.

[Piers Cawley]

Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Mark-Jason Dominus writes:
> : It may turn out that the new notation really does have exactly the
> : same ambiguities, but that's not clear to me now.  All I said was that
> : I would like to see some discussion of it.
> 
> Operator vs term processing would presumably treat any initial / as it
> does now (in the absence of mandatory m//), so that's not a problem as
> far as I can see.  But for linguistic reasons I don't think putting the
> regex in front of the variable is a good idea.  I already regret putting
> the class as the second argument of bless.

But 'bless $obj => Class' reads very nicely as 'bless $obj into
Class'. 

-- 
Piers