--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
> : > No, no. I'm talking about the unary . prefix
> : >
> : > method blah {
> : > .foo()
> : > [.]foo() # What does this mean?
> : > }
> :
> : Vector of invocations of the foo methods of the current topic.
>
> Except that the topic is by definition singular in a method, and so
> is a method name. So it'd be no different from ordinary dot. Maybe
> it's an error to use a vector op on two scalars.
method blah()
{
@values = [.]@list_of_methods(); # Are method pointers meaningful?
}
>
> : Presumably you'd have an array in topic, or you'd use it in an
> array
> : context.
> :
> : for @lol -> @onelist {
> : @a = [.]foo();
> : }
>
> Yes, that would work, though I'd love to see it:
>
> for @lol -> @onelist {
> @a = �.�foo();
> }
How do you write a � in a Windows based environment? (Other than by
copying them from Larry's emails or loading MSWord to do
insert->symbol)
> instead. Maybe ^[+] (or whatever) is just a workaround for people
> who can't figure out how to write �+�. I love the "shimmers" on
> either side of the operator. That's a nice plural visual metaphor.
Yeah, "This looks kind of fuzzy. You probably don't clearly see what's
going on." Works for me.
> I'd even be willing to give up �foo bar baz� meaning qw(foo bar baz)
> for this.
Holy rat-on-a-stick, Batman! That IS quite a sacrifice...
=Austin
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
