> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm > Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:01:34 -0700 (MST) > From: John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Nov 2002 18:01:34.0398 (UTC) FILETIME=[B70BCDE0:01C281D0] > X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/ > > On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote: > > > On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > : does it mean that *all* postfix operators have to be "attached" > > : without space to their operand or used with space eater modifyer > > : > > : or > > : > > : only those for which parser ( or we ) knows that they may be confused > > : with binary op or term ? > > > > I think a postfix has to be "attached" always. If there is no postfix, > > then a binary operator doesn't need to have space before it. Otherwise > > it does. > > And if there is no binary, then the postfix can have a space before it? > > Or are we introducing this new restriction to perl6 just because someone > can define a binary operator:++ ? > > perl5 -le '$a = [[42]]; print $$a [0] [0] ++; print $$a[0][0]' > 42 > 43
Ah, however: perl -le 'print($a ++)' syntax error at -e line 1, next char ) Execution of -e aborted due to compilation errors. So there's some mysterious rule like this in perl5, but I think it's got a couple more special cases, or something. Luke
