On 6/17/05 10:56 PM, David Storrs wrote:
>  I'm not fond of .:: because I don't think it's sufficiently visually
>  distinct from .:.

Hm, let's look at it:

    method total(...)
    {
      .::sanity_check();
      return .:value_one() + .:value_two();
    }

Maybe lined up?

    .::internal_value();
    .:public_value();

I don't mind it, dots and all.  I also think the .:: is quickly identifiable
as "thicker" than .: even at a glance.  YMMV.

>  I don't have a better suggestion...but that's mostly because I
>  dislike this entire concept of secondary sigils.  I already get to
>  have the "Perl is line noise!" conversation _way_ too often...I don't
>  feel that we need to give the trolls more ammunition.

I think $ is way more objectionable to the lily-white non-Perl heathens, but
I don't really care about them either way.  I'm just saying ./ screams "file
path" to me, or maybe even "typo-ed Java/C++ comment" or something.
Certainly not "method invocation" or "implicit invocant."  The .: thing,
OTOH, totally works for me and I've always liked it.  I'm just trying to
stretch it to cover both public and private.  Maybe there's something better
than both.

(You know, if I had a nickel for every minute I've spent staring at my
keyboard's key caps while reading the p6 lists over the years...)

-John