HaloO,
Damian Conway wrote:
I think that's an appalling idea. <<>> is *vastly* more valuable as
interpolated word list.
I agree.
If you *have* to propose manuthreading, go with the previous proposal
and use >><< instead. The argument that the angles should point
ning.
I think that's an appalling idea. <<>> is *vastly* more valuable as
interpolated word list.
If you *have* to propose manuthreading, go with the previous proposal and use
>><< instead. The argument that the angles should point to the operator is
spuriou
On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 22:22:07 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> You're going to need to find another syntax. That one already means something
> else (namely, shell-like interpolating word list).
Luke said he was going to sleep, so I'll point you to some chat logs
instead of letting you wait for hi
Luke wrote:
Now I'm going to propose a variant for circumfix:
foo(1, <<@a>>, 2);
Where the meta operator is pointing to the parentheses around the
call. Then it is easy to do my map above:
my ($val1, $val2, $val3) = foo("bar", <<1,2,3>>, "baz")
You're going to need to find another
On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 09:45:02 +, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Where the meta operator is pointing to the parentheses around the
> call. Then it is easy to do my map above:
>
> my ($val1, $val2, $val3) = foo("bar", <<1,2,3>>, "baz")
I think a some << and >> of the same "shape" thrown into to
While nothingmuch and I are gutting junctions and trying to find the
right balance of useful/dangerous, I'm going to propose a new way to
do autothreading that doesn't use junctions at all.
First, let me show you why I think junctions aren't good enough:
I can't extract the information that the t
