On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 15:09, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:56:11PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > > Also, just wondering:
> > >
> > > $_[_][EMAIL PROTECTED] _=_0_-_
> > >
> > > does that work the way I expect it to?
> >
> > Dunno, what do you expect it to do?. To my way of thinking there's
> > going to be a syntax error at the third '_'. But I'm not entirely
> > certain of that.
> To me, the third '_' seems like it'd be an unambiguous case of the concatenation
> operator. I still can't parse it, however; it looks like an attempt to
> modify a non-lvalue:
>
> $_.[_()] _ @_._() _= _0_() - _()
Hmm... meant this to be silly, but this is now bringing up some
important things.
$_[_]
This to me, means
$_ . ['_']
But, only if {} goes away, as we still need the
$x{foo}
behavior, don't we?
_0_
This was my mistake. It would have to be 0_0_, to be a number, which
breaks my perfect string of underscores ;-)
Everything else that you say is as I expected it to be taken. It's
interesting how many people assumed it'd be a syntax error, though....
