Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

James Coupe james at
Fri Oct 10 17:35:06 BST 2008

In message <20081010150722.GN59815 at>, Nicholas Clark
<nick at> writes:
>But I forget the reasoning behind the evolution of the :: to !!

Google suggests concerns included:

- allowing :: to be used unambiguously for type sigils
- letting operators mean roughly the same thing in different contexts,
  so a hypothetical infix :: indicates (roughly) "I'm doing symbol table
- Larry's dislike of "neither/nor" constructs
- Thomas Sandlass unhappy with the ternary operator as it stood
- Larry settling on ??!! (At least this week...)

It got added to pugs shortly thereafter.

James Coupe

More information about the mailing list