Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:13:52PM +0200, Yuval Kogman wrote:I don't see the point of making them list ops. Leaving them at that precedence level makes sense, but leave them unary. For a list version, you can write C<?any(...)> or C<?none(...)> to do the same thing.
: On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:51:57 +0100, Juerd wrote:
: : > Autrijus suggested "indeed" or "id", of which I like "indeed" better,
: > because I'd like to continue using "id" with databases.
: : whether?
That's an interesting possibility, though I think about half the people would misspell it. Maybe that's a feature. It works well for:
$yesno = whether any(@foo) == @any(@bar);
I don't mind it being long.
I should point out I'm rethinking the idea of whether or not whether and
not should be list operators. "not @foo" would have unexpected consequences
if it forces list context, so I think we better let people hyper those
manually if needed. I think we can leave "not" at the precedence of
list operators without actually making it one, but maybe we should make
a separate precedence level for it to keep list op precedence "pure".
-- Rod Adams
