On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 05:37:54PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote: : Juerd writes: : > What happens to the flip flop operator? Will .. in scalar context : > remain the same? What comes in place of ...? (An adverb?) : : The scalar range operator was always a weird one for me, but that isn't : to say that it hasn't been put to good use by wizards. I wouldn't be : surprised if it stayed. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if : it left.
It's leaving syntactically but not semantically. : Anyway, to answer what I _do_ know, isn't .. exactly the same as ... in : Perl 5? That was my impression, at least (I've never used the latter in : practice, but my little test script seems to work). I think you'll find there's a difference between perl -ne 'print if 2..2'; perl -ne 'print if 2...2'; But as they say: "When all else fails, read the directions." :-) : Anyway, in Perl 6, list .. is your good old Perl 5 .. with lazy : semantics. Yes, but it has to do that in scalar position now too, since it constructs a lazy Range object. That's the strongest argument for changing Perl 5's flipflop to some other syntax, actually. (I thought about putting it into the other message I was composing, except I was driving at the time I thought of it, and forgot it by the time I got back to the house. But hey, I'm getting old enough I can start blaming it on senility, right?) Larry