HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
The whitespace proposal is essentially to
require whitespace between any operator any following pair if the
pair is intended to be a noun and not an adverb.
So, then my log:base(2) would still look for the positional argument,
right?
Alternately, we could force eve
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 06:15:07PM +0200, TSa wrote:
>> Do you write
>>
>> $a lt:lc $b le:lc $c
>
> I think that works and looks best. My favorite hope is that
>
>$x = log:2 $y;
>
> flies, as well.
>
>$x = log:base(2) $y;
>
> is a bit lengthy and
>
>$x = log $y, :base(2);
>
> looks
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
So do they have to go at the end of the whole expression in the current
grammar? I don't follow about the spaces.
The problem is term versus operator parsing.
Do you write
$a lt:lc $b le:lc $c
I think that works and looks best. My favorite hope is that
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
> As for
> marking each op individually, it might be possible if we add a
> whitespace dependency between "lt:lc" and "lt :lc", but 1 ..:by(2) 100
> is pretty ugly.
>
> Larry
So do they have to go at the end of the whole expression in the current gram
