I would like to suggest that we define:
multi sub *infix:+(...) {...}
Will always generate a warning (not just for Cinfix:+, but for any
operator) if used outside of a class definition or if used inside a
class definition where the current class does not appear in the list of
parameters.
Hurrah, even more use of «». But that is okay, as I have nearly half of
my terminals configured now, so that I can input and view them.
I don't understand why it is needed, though. Why wasn't infix:+ good
enough?
infix:«+» and infix:{'+'} are more linenoise, and IMHO it's far from
elegant.
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 12:32:11AM +0100, Juerd wrote:
Hurrah, even more use of . But that is okay, as I have nearly half of
my terminals configured now, so that I can input and view them.
Excellent! As soon as you have the other half configured you'll be
ready for perl6 (and by that time
On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 06:19:05PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: It eliminates the hackish division of circumfix operators by making
: each side explicit. This is an improvement if you ask me.
More importantly, it avoids having to enumerate a list of characters
that have to be backslashed.
On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 12:40:45PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: I would like to suggest that we define:
:
: multi sub *infix:+(...) {...}
:
: Will always generate a warning (not just for Cinfix:+, but for any
: operator) if used outside of a class definition or if used inside a
: class
