Tom Christiansen wrote: > Again, I can't *ever* remember wanting a function that did this. Rare things > shouldn't have hard-to-figure-out names. Why do you want it? Debugging or > something? Have you tried tie? I've found myself wanting this operator several times since I wrote the RFC - mostly for debugging and indicating progress. Nobody else seems to be as fond of the syntax as I am, so I will withdraw the RFC. (Its only virtue is the syntax.) Jon -- Knowledge is that which remains when what is learned is forgotten. - Mr. King
- Re: RFC 39 (v3) Perl should have a pr... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 39 (v3) Perl should have... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 39 (v3) Perl should ... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 39 (v3) Perl should ... Ask Bjoern Hansen
- Re: RFC 39 (v3) Perl should ... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 39 (v3) Perl should ... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 39 (v3) Perl should ... Ask Bjoern Hansen
- Re: RFC 39 (v3) Perl should ... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 39 (v3) Perl should have a print ... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 39 (v3) Perl should have a print oper... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 39 (v3) Perl should have a print ... Jon Ericson
- Re: RFC 39 (v3) Perl should have a pr... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 39 (v3) Perl should have a print operator Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 39 (v3) Perl should have a print operator Jon Ericson
- Re: RFC 39 (v3) Perl should have a print oper... Peter Scott