Larry Wall writes: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:19:52AM -0800, Brent Dax Royal-Gordon wrote: > : Luke Palmer wrote: > : >The reason we couldn't just decalre it with C<infix:.=> is because its > : >right hand side is not a usual expression. > : > : Isn't that what macros are for? > : > : macro infix:.= ($lhs, $rhs) is parsed(/<method_name>/) { > > Methods are really postfix operators, so that would probably be > something more like: > > macro postfix:.= ($lhs, $parsetree) > is parsed(/<ws>? <?method_name> <?method_args>/) { > > That's presuming we allow whitespace after the . and .= ops. > > (Also, these days you have to say <?foo> to collect the results into $0.)
Hooray! That was something I had been worried about. But C<?> doesn't seem to fit visually. What's "questionable" about that? I can think of a couple that I like better: <^foo> <*foo> <^foo> is my favorite at the moment (even though <*foo> is more visually pleasing), because it looks like it's transferring the information ^up^ in the parse tree. Luke