On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:12:02PM +0100, TSa wrote:
: I hope all these are now the same:
:
: foo => bar ; # result of evaluating bar available under foo key
: :foo( bar );
: :foobar ; # does that exist?
No. :foo with trailing whitespace is taken to mean :foo(1), so the
"bar" would
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:05:55PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 11/17/05, Joshua Choi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > But what does that mean for =>'s signature? What type would be its
: > first parameter? Would you call it "&infix:{'=>'}:(Bareword | Any,
: > Any)" or something like that? And in a
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
I think => gets special treatment from the parser; i.e. it is
undeclarable. It's probably not even declarable as a macro, since it
needs to look behind itself for what to quote.
And I think this is okay. For some reason, we are not satisfied if
"if" is undeclarable,
On 11/17/05, Joshua Choi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But what does that mean for =>'s signature? What type would be its
> first parameter? Would you call it "&infix:{'=>'}:(Bareword | Any,
> Any)" or something like that? And in any case, would you be able to
> use this autoquoting in or as a sub,
Greetings to everyone. I'm wondering about the => operator, which
still "autoquotes" its first arguement if it's bare, a la barewords.
Synopsis 1 says:
But => still autoquotes any bare identifier to its immediate left
(horizontal whitespace allowed but not comments). The identifier is
not subject
