Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> int1, int2, int4, int8, int16, int32, int64, uint1, uint2, uint4,
> uint8, uint16, uint32, uint64, num32, num64, num128, complex32,
> complex64, complex128, ...
Well, all that is harmless enough, as long as I don't ever have the
misfortune to inherit maintenance of any code that *uses* those
lowlevel types.
We are also getting a "holds whatever size number you put in it, up to
the limits of available system resources" type, right? Good.
> say "@x = @x[]"; # prints @x = 1 2 3
Nice. Until now I wasn't sure I liked the new interpolation rules,
but this looks good.
--
$;=sub{$/};@;=map{my($a,$b)=($_,$;);$;=sub{$a.$b->()}}
split//,"[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ --";$\=$ ;-> ();print$/
