At 02:18 PM 10/4/2001 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> > ** Miscellaneous
> >
> > Why 'operator:+' instead of 'operator::+'? (Other than the
> > potential verbosity required to declare operators within a
> > particular package.) I would think it more intuitive to think of
> > 'operator' as a provided package (within every package).
> >
> > Hmm, lexicals.
>
>Yep. Overloaded operators will be inherently lexical (to keep them from
>running amok), so they can't be in packages.
This is for when we change the parser, right? Overloaded operators attached
to variables will leak out and go wherever they go.
$foo + $bar
will call $foo's overloaded add if it has one no matter where $foo's used.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
