Larry Wall writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:19:52AM -0800, Brent Dax Royal-Gordon wrote:
> : Luke Palmer wrote:
> : >The reason we couldn't just decalre it with C<infix:.=> is because its
> : >right hand side is not a usual expression.
> :
> : Isn't that what macros are for?
> :
> : macro infix:.= ($lhs, $rhs) is parsed(/<method_name>/) {
>
> Methods are really postfix operators, so that would probably be
> something more like:
>
> macro postfix:.= ($lhs, $parsetree)
> is parsed(/<ws>? <?method_name> <?method_args>/) {
>
> That's presuming we allow whitespace after the . and .= ops.
>
> (Also, these days you have to say <?foo> to collect the results into $0.)
Hooray! That was something I had been worried about.
But C<?> doesn't seem to fit visually. What's "questionable" about
that?
I can think of a couple that I like better:
<^foo>
<*foo>
<^foo> is my favorite at the moment (even though <*foo> is more
visually pleasing), because it looks like it's transferring the
information ^up^ in the parse tree.
Luke
