Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 03:25:17PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote: > : Damian may not like the colon, but I couldn't help thinking that the "_" > : could be replaced with ":" and things would be cleaner. Example: > > Well, but the _ really is part of the name, insofar as it's trying to > isolate the namespace. Even with : we had to say that it would probably > be stored in the symbol table with the leading colon. Plus history is > on the side of leading _ meaning "private implementation detail", and > the : is awfully confusing in the neighborhood of adverb pairs. If it > were just sigiled variables, the : would probably be fine, but > > method :foo() {...} > > just has a strangeness to it that won't go away. Arguably that's a feature, > but I'm mostly worried with visual confusion with all the other colons > in Perl 6.
Just wanted to chip in here and say that I *do* think that its strangeness is a feature. History may be on the side of _, but consider that : wasn't valid syntax. I haven't written enough Perl 6 to say whether or not this is confusing with adverb pairs, but I love the colon for private methods/attributes and it's the one thing separating your new thinking from my ideal Perl 6 OO. -- matt diephouse http://matt.diephouse.com