On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 02:17:38PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Firstly, thanks for writing the message out so clearly that it cannot be
: misunderstood.
:
: Damian Conway skribis 2005-05-14 22:06 (+1000):
: > .{width} //= 80;
: > .{height} //= 24;
: > .{gutter} //= 4;
: > .{justification} //= 'left';
: > .{available} = .{width} - .{gutter}
: > .{size} = .{width} * .{height};
:
: Did something recently happen to .{} with regards to quoting, or did you
: forget '' (or to use <>) here?
Or maybe he declared
macro width { '"width"' }
...
:-)
: > Now, personally, I would like to see a short-cut for *both* types of
: > method call, but if we can't have that (if only for the lack of
: > spare punctuation) then I really think we have to go with the more
: > general form.
:
: ^ would not clash. Yes, ^ has uses already, but none in this position:
:
: * &infix:<^^>, high prec xor
: * &infix:<+^>, &infix:<~^>, &infix:<?~>, bitwise xor
: * &prefix:<+^>, &prefix:<~^>(, &prefix:<?^>??), bitwise negation
:
: It does mean you need whitespace for simple things like ^foo + ^bar,
: which I think is a loss, especially because .foo+.bar does work.
You guys are all ignoring that I said it could be set via pragma or macro.
If you want ^, just say
use self '^';
or some such. Then we can let it be decided culturally.
: There's probably a reason why bare method() can't work, but I can't
: think of one at this moment.
The only reason it can't work is that I loathe languages in which you
can't tell by inspection whether you're calling a function or a method.
So all you have to do is say
use self '';
and I will know right at the front that I don't want to read your code. :-)
Larry
