On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:11:16AM +0300, Richard Hainsworth wrote: > But I recently read this on irc: > > 2009-03-12 > 23:16 pugs_svn r25809 | lwall++ | This decrease in consistency on > the syntactic level is offset by an > 23:16 pugs_svn r25809 | lwall++ | increase in consistency on the > semantic level, as suggested by rouso++. > 23:16 pugs_svn r25809 | lwall++ | (We'd already gotten rid of the > dot forms of adverbs some time ago, > 23:16 pugs_svn r25809 | lwall++ | for similar reasons. We just > didn't quite carry the idea through.) > > and then read this: > > S03 Changes to Perl5 Operators > ... > > if $filename ~~ :e { say "exists" } > > is the same as > > if $filename.e { say "exists" } > > The 1st form actually translates to the latter form, so the object's > class decides how to dispatch methods. > > > Is there an inconsistency here?
Different dot form. I was talking about :foo.(), :bar.[] and such, which were removed from the spec some time ago, and are now actually gone from STD.pm and t/spec, thanks to your++ bringing it up. :) Larry