On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 03:02:14PM +0200, TSa wrote: : HaloO, : : Juerd wrote: : >Luke Palmer skribis 2005-10-18 11:57 (-0600): : > : >>It looks nicer if you use the indirect object form: : >> trans "string": [ : >> <h e> => "0", : >> ]; : > : > : >It'd also look very nice with optional parens: : > : > "string".trans [ <h e> => "0" ]; : > : >Or is it not yet time to resuggest that? :) : : I like it. Given enough Meta Information---namely the structural : arrow type---the .trans could be parsed as postfix op that returns : a prefix op. Otherwise you get a 'two terms in a row' *syntax* error! : : (($ &) $)
I think it'd be somewhat unfortunate if we started trying to guess which .trans was eventually going to get called and change the parse based on that. : The left item is actually calculated at compile time from string : interpolation. The $ on the right is an itemized pair. Further : expanded we get : : ((&.($) & :$) : : or perhaps : : (&.($).&.(:$) This notation is unfamiliar to me. : BTW, lets assume the non-invocant param of .trans were called $foo. : Would in the above case +($foo.key) == 2? And I guess the parens : could be dropped because .key binds tighter than prefix:<+>, right? : I mean the type of the key in the pair is an array of compile time : strings. Or is that not preserved? Yes, that should be preserved, seems to me. Larry
