Carview!

CARVIEW

MOTORHOMES

Select Language

HTTP/2 200 cache-control: max-age=43200 server: Combust/Plack (Perl) vary: Accept-Encoding content-encoding: gzip content-length: 1980 content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 last-modified: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 16:26:40 GMT traceparent: 92f767aad86d1618fac070f0c3a31a46 strict-transport-security: max-age=15768000 Re: Dot forms of adjectives - nntp.perl.org

Front page | perl.perl6.language | Postings from March 2009

Re: Dot forms of adjectives

Thread Previous | Thread Next

From:

Larry Wall

Date:

March 15, 2009 03:54

Subject:

Re: Dot forms of adjectives

Message ID:

20090315105421.GA21817@wall.org

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:11:16AM +0300, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
> But I recently read this on irc:
>
> 2009-03-12
> 23:16    pugs_svn    r25809 | lwall++ | This decrease in consistency on  
> the syntactic level is offset by an
> 23:16    pugs_svn    r25809 | lwall++ | increase in consistency on the  
> semantic level, as suggested by rouso++.
> 23:16    pugs_svn    r25809 | lwall++ | (We'd already gotten rid of the  
> dot forms of adverbs some time ago,
> 23:16    pugs_svn    r25809 | lwall++ | for similar reasons.  We just  
> didn't quite carry the idea through.)
>
> and then read this:
>
> S03 Changes to Perl5 Operators
> ...
>
>    if $filename ~~ :e { say "exists" }
>
> is the same as
>
>    if $filename.e { say "exists" }
>
> The 1st form actually translates to the latter form, so the object's  
> class decides how to dispatch methods.
>
>
> Is there an inconsistency here?
Different dot form.  I was talking about :foo.(), :bar.[] and such,
which were removed from the spec some time ago, and are now actually
gone from STD.pm and t/spec, thanks to your++ bringing it up. :)
Larry

Thread Previous | Thread Next