On 29 Oct 2002 at 5:45, Piers Cawley wrote: > Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must > say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix > superposition ops. I'm a big fan of any/all/one/none, I just think > that > > one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $e, $f)) > > Is a good deal more intention revealing than the superficially > appealing than > > ($a & $b & $c) ^ ( $d | $e | $f ) > > which takes rather more decoding. And if you *do* want to use such > operators, surely you could just do > > use ops ':superpositions'; > > in an appropriate lexical scope. Am I missing something?
In this case I find the latter to be easier to decode and more appealing. There are less chars and paretheses are seen much more easily. The 'one(...)' especially seems to be superficial, as it's just 'this or that' operation in this case, and so single operator fits perfectly. Also the idea of allways using 'function' style for something so basic like superpositions doesn't appeal to me. Of course this might just be that I'm too used to use strange mathematical symbols. (Nobody ever understood my solutions in high-school...) -- Markus Laire 'malaire' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
