On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 02:17:38PM +0200, Juerd wrote: : Firstly, thanks for writing the message out so clearly that it cannot be : misunderstood. : : Damian Conway skribis 2005-05-14 22:06 (+1000): : > .{width} //= 80; : > .{height} //= 24; : > .{gutter} //= 4; : > .{justification} //= 'left'; : > .{available} = .{width} - .{gutter} : > .{size} = .{width} * .{height}; : : Did something recently happen to .{} with regards to quoting, or did you : forget '' (or to use <>) here?
Or maybe he declared macro width { '"width"' } ... :-) : > Now, personally, I would like to see a short-cut for *both* types of : > method call, but if we can't have that (if only for the lack of : > spare punctuation) then I really think we have to go with the more : > general form. : : ^ would not clash. Yes, ^ has uses already, but none in this position: : : * &infix:<^^>, high prec xor : * &infix:<+^>, &infix:<~^>, &infix:<?~>, bitwise xor : * &prefix:<+^>, &prefix:<~^>(, &prefix:<?^>??), bitwise negation : : It does mean you need whitespace for simple things like ^foo + ^bar, : which I think is a loss, especially because .foo+.bar does work. You guys are all ignoring that I said it could be set via pragma or macro. If you want ^, just say use self '^'; or some such. Then we can let it be decided culturally. : There's probably a reason why bare method() can't work, but I can't : think of one at this moment. The only reason it can't work is that I loathe languages in which you can't tell by inspection whether you're calling a function or a method. So all you have to do is say use self ''; and I will know right at the front that I don't want to read your code. :-) Larry