On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:23:04PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote: > > "Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:57:33AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote: > > : .... and _I'm_ trying to promote the reuse of the old "oct/hex" > > : functions to do a similar both-way thing, such that: > > > > What's a two-way function supposed to return if you pass it something > > that has both a string and a numeric value? Convert it both directions? > > It returns a junction, of course ;-)
D'oh! Another Dave anticipated me! That'll teach me to read the whole thread before responding. (Oh well, at least our smileys were different.) > Seriously though, I dislike the proposal. Of course, if we have a > 'do-it-as-a-string' operator modifier (As discussed for bitops, etc), then > we could have: > > ~hex(10) eq 'a' > hex(10) eq '16' > > But I still tend to read that ~ as a 1's complement. Fwiw, I suspect that the ~ will be used more often as stringification than as 1's complement, so people will fairly quickly remap their brains to the new meaning. --Dks
