Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley writes:
> : Yeah, that's sort of where I got to as well. But I just wanted to make
> : sure. I confess I'm somewhat wary of the ';' operator, especially
> : where it's 'unguarded' by brackets, and once I start programming in
> : Perl 6 then
> :
> : for (@aaa ; @bbb -> $a; $b) { ... }
> :
> : will be one of my personal style guidelines.
>
> That is likely a syntax error, because the -> is not an operator, but a
> kind of unary keyword like "sub", and it binds the righthand arguments
> to the following block. You'd have to say:
>
> for (@aaa; @bbb) -> ($a; $b) { ... }
So long as there's *some* way of 'protecting' the ; operator the
details of the syntax are almost irrelevant. And that does make a good
deal more sense.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
