Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[James Coupe]

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
  stuff"
- Larry's dislike of "neither/nor" constructs

http://groups.google.com/group/perl.perl6.language/msg/f2ca77d78771feb3
- Thomas Sandlass unhappy with the ternary operator as it stood

http://groups.google.com/group/perl.perl6.language/msg/134950b4c05eeb4e
- Larry settling on ??!! (At least this week...)

It got added to pugs shortly thereafter.

-- 
James Coupe