On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 05:19:22PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > At the moment I'm leaning toward ^ for concat, and ~ for xor. That I think that would lead to confusion too. In many languages ^ is xor and ~ is a bitwise invert. It is that way in perl now too, so perl is already quite standard in that area. Changing these just to get . for -> so that we are more "standard" seems very strange as you are loosing two standards to gain one. To be honest though I don't think it is possible to get a single char concat operator with loosing something else, which is a shame. It would be good if we could somehow overload + to be both string and numeric, but I not sure that is possible. The other choice is not to have a concat operator but instead have C<concat LIST>, but I guess not many people would like that either. Graham.
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Bart Lateur
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) John Porter
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloadi... David L. Nicol
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Branden
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloadi... John Porter
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Nathan Wiger
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloadi... John Porter
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Larry Wall
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloadi... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Graham Barr
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloadi... John Porter
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Russ Allbery
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloadi... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Bart Lateur
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) John L. Allen
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Michael G Schwern
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Edward Peschko
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloadi... Edward Peschko