Larry Wall skribis 2004-08-18 15:37 (-0700): > It the moment the zipper has moved to be the same precedence as comma, > because it really wants to be looser than ranges but tighter than > listops. Plus it's sort of like a »,« if you squint. I'm eagerly > awaiting my first opportunity to use the »¥« operator in anger...
Which makes me wonder: is there another core-only set of operators that renders as ???, or can we safely assume that ??? is >>Y<< (I still don't see why infix:Y would be wrong, and want it badly, because prefix zip() doesn't quite feel the same)? Let's see... ?foo bar baz? # qw %foo?bar? # qw @foo ?+? @bar # hyper @foo ? @bar # zip I guess it's not as bad as I initially thought. Even when rendered badly, I think in most cases it will still be recognisable. (Hm, can the real ? be made intelligent enough to dwim? Then I can even *copy and paste* the new operators in this terminal and have it dwym.) Juerd
