On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 01:32:14PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: >The | notation is mentioned in S012:1029, by the way.  Obviously you
: >still haven't quite memorized all the synopses.  :-)
: 
: Actually, I was very well aware of that fact.

Oops, didn't realize you were suggesting a semantic change to the default,
not just a syntactic addition.

: The above was a
: proposal for changing S12, for the express purpose of making the
: syntax for unordered composition at run-time look like the syntax for
: unordered composition at compile-time as much as possible (by the
: principle of least surprise).  Since this would remove the current
: syntax for doing ordered composition at runtime, and given that
: ordered composition at runtime is not something we want to lose, I was
: also proposing a replacement syntax for it.  So instead of
: 
:    role R does A does B does C { ... } # unordered composition
:    $x does A does B does C; # ordered composition
:    $y does A | B | C; # unordered composition
: 
: I'd like to see it done something like:
: 
:    role R does A does B does C { ... } # unordered composition
:    $x does A & does B & does C; # ordered composition
:    $y does A does B does C; # unordered composition
: 
: Same capabilities, but less cognitive dissonance.

Gotcha.  Sorry my brain was in sidewayser than usual.

: Mind you, I don't really care what syntax gets used for ordered
: composition; just as long as it isn't "does A does B does C".

I suspect ordered composition is going to be rare enough that we can
simply dehuffmanize it to

    $x does A;
    $x does B;
    $x does C;

Larry

Reply via email to