On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:51:58PM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote: : I understand that the reduce [] operator will have its standard forms : ([+], [<], etc) which will be immediately recognizable just like all : the other 3-char operators (==>, etc) will be. I'm just concerned : about the extended form and readability.
It's possible that we can allow both the reduce[*] and [*] forms, and let local policy dictate matters cobolish vs mathish. As a general rule we've trying to eliminate synonyms in Perl 6, but this might be a good place for one. Or perhaps we should by default restrict short ones to simple operators, since it's pretty obvious that [+] is doing *some* kind of addition, while [EMAIL PROTECTED]&$*#«=] is not quite so obvious. In other words, we apply some kind of Huffman amplification to the metaoperator, where the rich stay rich, but the poor get poorer. Or something like that. I always admired the Great Dalmutti as a game that has the gall (or sense of reality) to prejudice itself in favor of the overdogs rather than the underdogs. If we we were more democratic, we'd require "reduce" on the short ones instead of the long ones. :-) Larry
