On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:28:05PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: say $::<You can already do that!>;
Or you can use a symbolic ref with a constant string:
$::('x y');
The compiler knows it's a constant. And it's even implemented in Pugs.
But my thinking on the ::<> form is that it derives from the symbol
table as hash forms:
$MY::{'x y'}
$MY::<x y> # same thing
MY::<$x y> # same thing
$GLOBAL::{'x y'}
$GLOBAL::<x y> # same thing
GLOBAL::<$x y> # same thing
but I was assuming some particular symbol table would be supplied if you
just specified a null symbol table, MY maybe. If not, then you'd have
to say
$MY::<x y>
or use the symblic ref form.
Or I suppose the null symbol table could mean to search each symbol
table in the same order you would for a bare $foo. In other words,
there would be no difference between $foo and $::<foo> and ::<$foo>
(except you can't interpolate the last one in a string directly).
Larry
