Predicting Operators

[Mark Lentczner]

Uri Guttman wrote:
> are you going to predict any new operators based on missing boxes as
> mendeleev did? :)

Funny you should ask! It is clear that there is a missing "list
concatenate" operator, and that its spelling should be ~~. Alas, that
is already taken by "smart match". On the other hand, perhaps comma
fills this role - though I couldn't find my way through the discussion
on comma to know where it now stands.

I was going to predict a quasi-operator for an alternate form of
qw/.../, but seems I just missed the thread where «...» was introduced
for that purpose. It will be corrected in the next version of the
chart.

- Mark

Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
ma...@glyphic.com

[Aaron Sherman]

On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 02:26, Mark Lentczner wrote:
> It is clear that there is a missing "list
> concatenate" operator, and that its spelling should be ~~. Alas, that
> is already taken by "smart match". On the other hand, perhaps comma
> fills this role - though I couldn't find my way through the discussion
> on comma to know where it now stands.

Actually, since comma is now an operator for list construction, I
suppose ,= would certainly have a clear enough meaning.

Still, I'm not sure everything needs to be operatorified. Is push so
hard to use?

--
Aaron Sherman <a...@ajs.com>
Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith
"It's the sound of a satellite saying, 'get me down!'" -Shriekback