> : Assuming that optimization opportunities remained intact,
>
> They won't, but go on.
Because the syntax won't provide the compiler enough info?
> : do you think conflating @ and % would be a perl6 design win?
>
> Nope, I still think most ordinary people want different
> operators for strings than for numbers.
Yes.
But...
I think it's rather more natural to view an array or hash
element as a special form of function call than it is to
view parens as operators.
foo(1,2)
is a function call with two numeric arguments. What
syntax should one use to call a function with two string
arguments?
I am very happy that one does not have to use
differing parens (and presumably commas)
according to signature!
The danger here is stretching analogies too far...
> Dictionaries and calculators have very different
> interfaces in the real world, and it's false economy
> to overgeneralize.
>From numbers versus strings as subscripts to this
makes for an exquisitely ironic statement.
I have lived in awe and admiration of Larry for years
(and still do, I mean, A1/A2 are just incredible imo),
but at last I know he's almost human!
