Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
.... than my original suggestion.
--
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?
