Re: Tying & Overloading

[Dan Sugalski]

At 11:02 AM 4/23/2001 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Simon Cozens wrote:
> > John Porter wrote:
> > >   $a = $b $c;
> >
> > Actually, I'd rather like that to be equivalent to
> >     $a = $c->$b;
>
>Oops, sorry, I forgot the smiley.
>
>Oh, but thinking seriously about it:
>do we really want to keep the "indirect object" syntax?
>It is said to be a major source of ambiguity in perl.

I'd like to. I find it more visually appealing and easier to read than 
either the arrow or (gack) the dot. Though I'll freely grant I've a thing 
against the object.method notation at the moment--I've had to wade through 
a bunch of code that does it and I just can't stand it. (For no good 
reason, as it's not like the code I'm reading is particularly bad)

                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk