On Tue, Jan 23 2007, Larry Wall wrote: > ... Basically, this is the inverse of [;], which turns LoA into a > CoC. > > [;] chunky mumble() > > But "chunky" is clunky, and I'm wondering what syntactic relief we > can give ourselves here. ... > > (That almost suggests it should be another metaoperator. Let's all > shudder together now...but not rule out the possibility.) ... > > The possibilities are endless, and I don't doubt that you can think of > a few more...
To the horror of parsers everywhere, we could make the inverse of [;]
the "outverse" of [;]. What about this?
];[ mumble()
];[ map { $_, $_ * 10 }, 1..3
];[ zip(1,2;3,4)
There's already some precedent for bracketing pairs being pointed the
wrong way, as in (1,1,2,3,5) »+« (1,2,3,5,8). Also, ];[ kind of
looks like a butterfly, which I count as a point in its favor.
In true metaoperator form, you could presumably throw other operators
between the backwards brackets for other chunky operators. I haven't
really thought through what I would want multislice addition ( ]+[ )
or multislice equality testing ( ]==[ ) to mean, though.
Thanks,
/au
--
Austin Frank
http://aufrank.net
GPG Public Key (D7398C2F): http://aufrank.net/personal.asc
pgpELn1nzwRuz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
