Trey Harris wrote: > In a message dated Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Buddha Buck writes: > >>I suspect that, if it makes sense to say >> >>$foo = &$date.method; >> >>then it would also make sense to say >> >>$date .= $foo; >> >>as well. > > > Interesting, that first line > $foo = &$date.method; > > I need a bit of a refresher here, as my searches of the archives have > turned up blank. Ampersand replaces P5 C<\&> in taking a reference to a > subroutine or method? And ampersand is no longer used to call a > subroutine, in any context?
Actually, I think I got confused... Most of my work recently has been in C++, which uses & for references. Perhaps that should have been: $foo = \$date.method; So: > > $foo = &$date.method(); > > Would call $date.method, and return a reference to (a reference to) the > subroutine returned by Date::method()? > > I have a feeling that, as much nicer as Perl 6 references will be compared > to the Perl 5 punctuation-salad, it will take a long time to do it > automatically. It'll feel like grabbing for the stick-shift and clutch > that aren't there when you're driving an automatic.... > > Trey > >
