> 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