"Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 07:57:01PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> > ::m2; # calls global subroutine main::m2
>> > main::m2; # calls global subroutine main::m2
>>
>> This is looking more and more horrible Glenn.
> I think we need to back off of unmarked subroutines becoming a method
> call. That one extra '.' in front isn't too much, is it?
>
> I like the following, assumed to be within method m1:
>
> ..m2(); # call m2 the same way m1 was called, instance or class
Can't say I'm keen on that at all. We already have a '..' operator
(admittedly it's binary), and this new, unary .. doesn't really do
anything remotely similar (cf unary dot, unary _ and unary +, which
have behaviours which are obviously related to the binary forms.).
And haven't we done this discussion already?
--
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?
