On 5/6/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Luke Palmer skribis 2005-05-06 10:43 (-0600): > > > ! not none() ??? > > Nope. In order to create those, you just need to say none(). There > > is no operator form. > > Do we have postfix ! for factorials, or is it available?
No, it's available. What would we use to demonstrate how to write postfix operators (not to mention recursive functions) if we made that standard? > > > $$ AVAILABLE? AVAILABLE > > Nope. Not in term position. I hardly think it would be a good idea > > to make an operator out of it (or even a single $), however. > > Why would a single $ be a bad operator? We already have the single % for > mod, and that works well. I think @ and $ are perfect candidates for > infix operators. Because we're marking all of our singular nouns with $, and you have to admit, the $ sigil in perl code is much more common than @ and %. What good is a noun marker if you mark some of your verbs with it too? Luke > > That's "class sigil" in term position. Separating namespaces never > > have preceding whitespace, so they're always part of some larger term. > > Is there any important difference between "namespace" and "class" in > Perl 6? Do they share the same, ehm, namespace? (classspace?) Just making sure you weren't considering the :: in $Foo::Bar to be an operator. There is a difference between class and namespace in that a class is a type and a namespace isn't. But I think you mark them both with the :: sigil in this case. Luke
