HaloO, Luke wrote: > Okay, now why don't you tell us about this new binary :: you're proposing.
Well, not a new one. Just plain old foo::bar::blahh and 'my ::blubb $x' with relaxed whitespace rules. The ternary ?? :: is a splinter in my mind's eye because it is not a compile time or symbol lookup construct. The driving idea is to let tokens always mean the same or at least very similar things in different contexts. And I thought that is your rating as well. For :: that should be 'symbol table management'. E.g. ::= fits that notion perfectly while the alternative separation of the ternary doesn't. There's yet another approach, to make ternary listfix: $val = $cond ?? "true" ?? "false"; and perhaps we change it from ternary to (n > 2)-ary: $val = $tested_only ?? $val_or_test ?? $other_or_test ?? $final; But in both ways, recursive "ternary" needs parens. Which can be regarded as a good thing. This listfix ?? behaves more like a rhs returning ||. As the RegularityGuy(TM) I like the chaining triple // || \\ where // returns the first defined, || returns the first true and \\ returns the first false. And of course there are low precedence counterparts err, or, nor. And the binary \ for none() construction. BTW is (\) indicating the relative complement of the set operators? Even the unary ref prefix makes sense as \ because it means 'not the value' or 'not right here but keep for later reference'. -- TSa
