> Larry Wall writes: > > I'd entertain a proposal that ... be made a valid term that happens > > to do nothing, so that you can run your examples through perl -c for > > syntax checks. Or better, make it an official "stub" for rapid > > prototyping, with some way of getting a warning whenever you execute > > such a stub. > > This is the coolest suggestion made so far for perl6. I love it. And it's backwards compatible with a huge volume of "handwaving" code ;-) > Runtime behaviour of '...' is to warn "unimplemented behaviour". With > use strict 'development', it dies "unimplemented behaviour" at > compile-time. I take it the existing C<...> operator would be unaffected? Damian
- Re: Do we really need eq? Nathan Torkington
- Re: Do we really need eq? Spider Boardman
- Re: Do we really need eq? Randal L. Schwartz
- ... as a term Larry Wall
- Re: ... as a term Randal L. Schwartz
- Re: ... as a term Nathan Torkington
- Re: ... as a term skud
- Re: ... as a term Damian Conway
- Re: ... as a term John Porter
- Re: ... as a term Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: ... as a term Damian Conway
- Re: ... as a term Larry Wall
- Re: ... as a term Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: ... as a term John Porter
- Re: ... as a term Larry Wall
- Re: ... as a term John Porter
- Re: ... as a term Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: ... as a term John Porter
- Re: Do we really need eq? Steve Simmons
- Re: Do we really need eq? John Porter
- Re: Do we really need eq? David L. Nicol