HaloO, Larry Wall wrote: > I now think it's a bad idea to overload | or & to do type construction,
Is it then a god idea to overload the set operations? At least the type constructions are set theoretic on the intension set of the roles. > especially since the tendency is to define them backwards from the > operational viewpoint that most Perl programmers will take. Can you give an example how these directions collide? Is it the fact that A(|)B produces a subtype of A and B, and that A(&)B produces a supertype? I can imagine that 'does A&B' could be read as doing both interfaces. BTW, what is set complement? Is it (!)? Regards, TSa. --
