why ~ for xor?

[Michal Wallace]

Out of curiosity, why does ~ map to both
unary bitwise-not and binary bitwise-xor
in imcc?

I was expecting xor to be ^ and ^^

Sincerely,

Michal J Wallace
Sabren Enterprises, Inc.
-------------------------------------
contact: mic...@sabren.com
hosting: http://www.cornerhost.com/
my site: http://www.withoutane.com/
--------------------------------------

[Leopold Toetsch]

Michal Wallace <mic...@sabren.com> wrote:

> Out of curiosity, why does ~ map to both
> unary bitwise-not and binary bitwise-xor
> in imcc?

> I was expecting xor to be ^ and ^^

Perl6ism at some time IIRC. I stopped following the various operator
threat^Hds in p6l. But if they are fixed, we should probably go with
Perl6 operators, because they are more complete.

Is there a summary somewhere?

> Sincerely,
>
> Michal J Wallace

leo

[Thomas Vesper]

Michal Wallace wrote:
> Out of curiosity, why does ~ map to both
> unary bitwise-not and binary bitwise-xor
> in imcc?
>
> I was expecting xor to be ^ and ^^

See Apocalypse 3 for this.
^ was reclaimed for hyperoperators.
Binary ~ was chosen as replacement since bitwise-not is already somehow
like bitwise xor with only one operand.
And so ~~ became logical xor.

Thomas

[Tom Legrady]

When the Perl 6 book came out last month, I contacted the authors
because they use a "vector operator", >>+<<, rather than hyper-operator
^. Allison Randall replied:

"The name and the representation changed late last year in
a big operator cleanup, but the functionality is the same."

So what is '^' being used for, if hyper-operators are no more?
Tom Legrady

[Michal Wallace]

Aha. I remember that now. Thanks. :)