On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> There's this basic rule that says you can't have an operator for both binary
> and postfix, since it's expecting an operator in either case, rather than a
> term (which is how we recognize prefix operators). The one exception I can
> think of is that we might allow .. as a postfix operator, but only if followed
> by a right bracket. That would let us say
>
> @a[0..]
>
> rather than
>
> @a[0..Inf]
>
> But that's a special case.
Would that mean that three other special cases of postfix .. might exist?
0..; # useful for return 0..;
(0..) # pass infinite lists as parameters with less typing
{0..} # not sure, but it follows on
Nicholas Clark
