Yes, I understand. Thanks for pointing that out both here and on StackOverflow.
I will update this as soon as there is some sort of closure on this.
Note that I waited a day for some response here; currently there is nothing much to report either here or in StackOverflow. In StackOverflow though, there was a little more verbiage if only to get more clarification. So right now see StackOverflow if this question is as confusing to you as appearently it was (is?) to Mike Schwern.
Again, I will update with condensed summary information here when there is something to report, as I have done in the past where I have received help on StackOverflow but also asked on PerlMongers first. To do it while things are in the air doesn't seem like a worthwhile use of time and and may be confusing for folks as well.
Similarly, if there is activity here, I'll update the StackOverflow side when there is some sort of closure.
Of course, monks and others can just follow one place if that's what they prefer. Ultimately, you'll find the same information (albeit in condensed form) in either place.
In reply to Re^2: How can I turn an op address into the right kind of B::OP?
by rockyb
in thread How can I turn an op address into the right kind of B::OP?
by rockyb
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |