Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
james at zephyr.org.uk
Fri Oct 10 17:35:06 BST 2008
In message <20081010150722.GN59815 at plum.flirble.org>, Nicholas Clark
<nick at ccl4.org> 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.
More information about the london.pm