Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:22:02AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Does the change from ?: to ??:: mean that we can have '?' as a valid
> > character in an identifier? I quite like the ruby/scheme idiom of
> > having boolean methods ending in a question mark. eg:
> >
> > sub is_visible? {...}
>
> I was gonna suggest that pre-Apoc 3 but ran into the same trouble with ?:
>
> Hmm, $obj.meth! is a syntax error, but func! isn't. Damn.
>
> For those of you that don't know, func! is another Ruby idiom that
> differentiates between the version of a function that returns it's
> results and the one which alters it's arguments in place.
Actually, I think it was a scheme thing first, and once you know it
it's a really handy convention.
--
Piers
