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