Simon Cozens writes: : On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 02:47:19PM -0400, John Porter wrote: : > Not that there are any such people. Yet. : : Indeed. And I suspect that the first Perl 6 programmers are Perl 5 : programmers, who know damned well what "next FOO" means. Well, it's certainly the case that "next" by itself has to infer a much different "object" than, say, "length" by itself. I don't think anybody is going to argue with you that "next" has to be treated specially. My original point was merely that the parser could be parsing it that way, not that it didn't have extraordinary semantics once parsed. The exception would be at the semantic binding level, not at the parsing level. That's all. Larry
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Peter Scott
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dan Sugalski
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Larry Wall
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Larry Wall
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns David L. Nicol
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Piers Cawley
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens