>>OP<< [was: Re: Properties]
Paul Hodges
--- Michael Lazzaro <mlaz...@cognitivity.com> wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 01:05 PM, Hodges, Paul wrote:
> > Didn't know "is" would do that. Good to know!
> > And in my meager defense, I did reference MikeL's operator
> > synopsis as of 3/25/03, which said ^[op] might be a synonym
> > for <<>> or >><< (Sorry, no fancy chars here. :)
>
> Hey, that was *March*! ;-) The fossil records from that time are
> fragmentary, at best.
lol... and I've been a little out of the loop lately, too.
> I don't think I ever saw any further reference to the ^[op] syntax
> staying alive; I assume that means it's dead. Last I heard, which
> was admittedly around the same time frame, we'd have the
> non-Unicode-using >>op<<, and a Unicode synonym »op«, and that's it.
I think I saw a few of those in passing. Been a while. :)
> There were also vaguely threatening proposals to have <<op>> and
> >>op<< do slightly different things. I assume that is also dead,
> and that <<op>> is (typically) a syntax error.
Which is probably a good idea. We have any/all/one/none, and not
*everything* needs a punctuation-type version. I'd actually rather
*not* have alternate versions of those, unless they do something
different, like they way "or" has a lower precedence than "||".
Likewise, if we're going to use <<>> as P6's version of P5's qw//, then
never mind the complexity of making the parser able to figure out that
a given case of <<+>> means I've deleted all other items from the list,
rather than wanting a distributive addition.... Yes, I could figure it
out, but there are currently enough contextually dependent items in the
language that the importance of that one doesn't strike me as 'core'
necessary, if you know what I mean. :o)
> If anyone in the know knows otherwise, plz verify for Piers' summary
> and the future fossil record.
> MikeL
Could we get a synopsis posted somewhere?
Maybe something that inticates the current state of this particular onion?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
Michael Lazzaro
On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 12:37 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Michael Lazzaro writes:
>> There were also vaguely threatening proposals to have <<op>> and
>> >>op<<
>> do slightly different things. I assume that is also dead, and that
>> <<op>> is (typically) a syntax error.
>
>
> At the moment, as most of you probably know, they do *very* different
> things. >>op<< vectorizes the operator, and <<some stuff>> is
> equivalent to qw{some stuff}.
Sorry, right.
I therefore deduce that the proposal to have, for example, <<+>> mean a
different flavor of vectorization than >>+<<, e.g. for these to do
different things:
@a >>+<< @b;
@a <<+>> @b;
is quite soundly and completely dead.
Excellent. Let us not speak of it again.
MikeL
Luke Palmer
> And as far as I know, << and >> are exactly equivalent to 束 and 損 in all
> cases.
By which I mean « and », of course. :-/
(mutt is kind of a pain in this area)
Luke
à
Luke Palmer
>
> On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 01:05 PM, Hodges, Paul wrote:
> >Didn't know "is" would do that. Good to know!
> >And in my meager defense, I did reference MikeL's operator synopsis as
> >of
> >3/25/03, which said ^[op] might be a synonym for <<>> or >><< (Sorry,
> >no
> >fancy chars here. :)
>
> Hey, that was *March*! ;-) The fossil records from that time are
> fragmentary, at best.
>
> staying alive; I assume that means it's dead. Last I heard, which was
> admittedly around the same time frame, we'd have the non-Unicode-using
>
> There were also vaguely threatening proposals to have <<op>> and >>op<<
> do slightly different things. I assume that is also dead, and that
> <<op>> is (typically) a syntax error.
Ack. No, slightly different things would be a very bad idea.
At the moment, as most of you probably know, they do *very* different
things. >>op<< vectorizes the operator, and <<some stuff>> is
equivalent to qw{some stuff}.
And as far as I know, << and >> are exactly equivalent to 束 and 損 in all
cases.
Luke