--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote: > : > No, no. I'm talking about the unary . prefix > : > > : > method blah { > : > .foo() > : > [.]foo() # What does this mean? > : > } > : > : Vector of invocations of the foo methods of the current topic. > > Except that the topic is by definition singular in a method, and so > is a method name. So it'd be no different from ordinary dot. Maybe > it's an error to use a vector op on two scalars.
method blah() { @values = [.]@list_of_methods(); # Are method pointers meaningful? } > > : Presumably you'd have an array in topic, or you'd use it in an > array > : context. > : > : for @lol -> @onelist { > : @a = [.]foo(); > : } > > Yes, that would work, though I'd love to see it: > > for @lol -> @onelist { > @a = «.»foo(); > } How do you write a « in a Windows based environment? (Other than by copying them from Larry's emails or loading MSWord to do insert->symbol) > instead. Maybe ^[+] (or whatever) is just a workaround for people > who can't figure out how to write «+». I love the "shimmers" on > either side of the operator. That's a nice plural visual metaphor. Yeah, "This looks kind of fuzzy. You probably don't clearly see what's going on." Works for me. > I'd even be willing to give up «foo bar baz» meaning qw(foo bar baz) > for this. Holy rat-on-a-stick, Batman! That IS quite a sacrifice... =Austin __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/