"H.Merijn Brand" wrote:
>
> > > $a = $b ~ $c; # Mmm!
> > >
> > > I like that last one a lot, because it doesn't disturb anything.
> > > You'd have to alter ~'s precedence so that binary ~ is higher
> > > than named unary operators. (It's print($a~$b), not print $a (~b).)
> >
> > I am not sure I do like the use of ~ here. It does not screan concatenate
> > to me (but then again neither did . when I started perl)
> >
> > I am thinking that maybe it should be a 2 character operator with at
> > least one of then being + as + is common in many other languages
> > for doing concatenation.
>
> like ++ ?
>
> we have ** already for exponents
I _really_ think dot-syntax would make perl prettier as well as make it
more acceptable to the world of javacsharpbasic droids. Which is some
kind of goal, no?
I suspect that we will never agree on anything here though.
Which of qw[~ ++ +~ + &] do we dislike the least? Using + would be
nice, but introduce no end of problems with number/sting behaviour. '&'
is too much like a certain unpopular language. And there was no end to
the quabbling :(
If we can make the concatenation into something else, we free the dot to
do "string".length() and innumerable other niceties.
Suggestions?
ps. What do you think about the following sentence: "we should steal
more from ruby"? a) disgusting, b) uninteresting, c) clever, d)
wonderful.
pps. if ($_ === qw(b c d)) {
"=== 'is in' operator",
"dot operator remapped to mean",
"objectspace array/iterator as in ruby, giving access to all existing
data (but of course more complete than rubys rather flaky
implementation",
}
--
davíð helgason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
