On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > There's this basic rule that says you can't have an operator for both binary > and postfix, since it's expecting an operator in either case, rather than a > term (which is how we recognize prefix operators). The one exception I can > think of is that we might allow .. as a postfix operator, but only if followed > by a right bracket. That would let us say > > @a[0..] > > rather than > > @a[0..Inf] > > But that's a special case.
Would that mean that three other special cases of postfix .. might exist? 0..; # useful for return 0..; (0..) # pass infinite lists as parameters with less typing {0..} # not sure, but it follows on Nicholas Clark