On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 07:33:42AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Or something else. I'm assuming something else, because there may be
> cases in which we want to define our own ternary operators. (Weird
> cases perhaps, but cases nevertheless...
>
> operator:??($)::($)
I'd expect that to be m
Okay, I think I understand how we're going to be mapping from an
operator to a function name in most cases. But what about the ternary
operator?
operator:??::
Or something else. I'm assuming something else, because there may be
cases in which we want to define our own ternary operators. (Wei
