[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : Larry pondered: : : > Perhaps we shouldn't be using ; for this. : : That has occurred to me on several occasions but, checking my pockets, I : find I'm fresh out of spare symbols to replace it with. : : We could always use colon, of course ;-)
Well, more likely than that would be double colon. It would stand out better: for @a :: @b :: @c -> $a :: $b :: $c { ... } And it would probably not interfere much with the doubledoubledots of the ??:: operator. (Certainly less than the ; overloading.) On the other hand, semicolon works out really nicely within brackets for multidimensional slices, and the mathematicians like it. And I don't know how the :: would fit in with other adverbial generalities. Larry