RE: [FWP] Fun with terminology

["Larry Rosler" <lr@hpl.hp.com>]

> From: Ronald J Kimball [mailto:rjk@linguist.dartmouth.edu]
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 11:18
> To: Peter Scott
> Cc: fwp@technofile.org
> Subject: Re: [FWP] Fun with terminology
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 11:11:12AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> > Incidentally, can someone explain to me why perlop uses the term
'prefix'
> > here:
> >
> >       Here is what C has that Perl doesn't:
> >
> >       unary * Dereference-address operator. (Perl's prefix
> >               dereferencing operators are typed: $, @, %, and &.)
> >
> > instead of 'unary'?  It seems to me that the Perl dereferencing
operators
> > are just as unary as C's *, so I'm wondering why the mix of
terminology in
> > the same paragraph.
> >
>
> Probably because Perl also has the infix dereferencing operator ->
which is
> not typed.

The last time I looked, C has one of those also.  :-)  Try again?

--
Larry Rosler
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Larry_Rosler/
lr@hpl.hp.com



==== Want to unsubscribe from Fun With Perl?  Well, if you insist...
==== Send email to <fwp-request@technofile.org> with message _body_
====   unsubscribe