John Siracusa skribis 2005-06-18 20:33 (-0400):
>  I literally didn't even consider that it could be some sort of new
>  syntax--and that's saying a lot considering I was reading p6l.

You missed a 33 message thread that was referred to many times. Such
things happen, I am surprised by new inventions all the time too because
I don't read everything that flashes by.

Still, if you hadn't missed the thread in question, or if you had read
documentation about this, then you wouldn't have been surprised. I'm
sure someone who hasn't been paying attention finds [+] or +<< or even 
<foo bar>  extremely weird, but that does not influence the design. The
simple fact that someone who doesn't read the manual is lost entirely,
remains with Perl 6.

>  > The divisioniness is something you'll just have to get over. Do you see
>  > any division in /\w+/?
>  No, because it's in pairs there (and because of ~12 years of perl 4-5 :)

I think the remark in parens is extremely important. Perl is an operator
based language. Thinks WILL looks weird if you don't know the language.
But it just takes some time.

>  I'm just hoping there's an alternative that everyone will like better

As long as I'm part of "everyone", that won't happen. I've listed
numerous possibilities for myself, and found none that I liked better
than ./method. I don't think you can come up with a pretty and
easy-to-type and unambiguous ASCII based operator that I haven't
considered yet.


Juerd
-- 
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html 
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html