> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:45:16 -0800
> From: "Erik Steven Harrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Sent-Mail: off
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Sender-Ip: 152.18.50.63
> Organization: Angelfire (http://email.angelfire.mailcity.lycos.com:80)
> Content-Language: en
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
>
> --
>
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:26:13
> Brent Dax wrote:
>
> >I can honestly say at this point that I'd rather give up <$iterator>
> >than lose hyperops.
>
> I was thinking the same thing not long ago. But now
> that I think about it, is <operator> ever going to be
> confused for <$File_Handle>? The vector operation cosy
> up well to the concept of iteration anyway. Hell, if
> were desperate (and I think we are) then why not just
> double the brackets to <[op]> or [<op>]. Sure it's
> ugly, but I prefer it to ^[op] any day of the week,
> and it's not going to be ambiguous.
>
> All that said, can anyone come up with a case to
> confuse <op> with <$File_Handle>?
sub postfix:bar returns handle;
$y = undef <bar>;
That has two syntactically valid interpretations. It wouldn't take
even that much to confuse the parser, though.
Luke
