Chaim Frenkel writes:
> The other magic variables would simply end up as some funny 8-bit
> characters floating around. With one's handy (several thousand page)
> translation table one can then interpret the meaning.
That's insane. We're trying to get rid of special variables named
after obscure
> "NT" == Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NT> Chaim Frenkel writes:
>> [use wacky Unicode characters for new operators]
>> I can see that this would give problems for current editors and displays,
>> but by the time perl6 comes out, perhaps the situation would be better.
NT> No
Peter Scott writes:
> >You're right. If RFC 45 is implemented they would however be inconsistent.
>
> No, || is half-consistent at the moment: the left hand side is forced into
> scalar context but the result context propagates down the right hand
> side. I challenge anyone to come up with a r
Chaim Frenkel writes:
> [use wacky Unicode characters for new operators]
> I can see that this would give problems for current editors and displays,
> but by the time perl6 comes out, perhaps the situation would be better.
No. Never ever gamble on the future being better than the present.
Don't
Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> Would Unicode reduce the problem? Take some operators from the math symbols
> and make them the matrix op versions?
>
> (Now, if we add all that APL symbols ...)
Chaim, I think you are on to something here. But before jumping to Unicode or APL
to get more line noise, let'
(Not feasible yet, but...)
Would Unicode reduce the problem? Take some operators from the math symbols
and make them the matrix op versions?
Then the 'ascii' versions would remain the scalar ops.
I can see that this would give problems for current editors and displays,
but by the time perl6 com
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 11:15:03PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> No, || is half-consistent at the moment: the left hand side is forced into
> scalar context but the result context propagates down the right hand
> side. I challenge anyone to come up with a rationalization for this that
> does not
At 04:02 PM 8/16/00 +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
>Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > Your [Jeremy's] RFC says:
> > > Currently, operators applied to lists in a list context behave
> > > counter-intuitively:
> >
> > Counter-intuitively is different from consistently. Your title is
> > misleading. Perl's
Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Your [Jeremy's] RFC says:
> > Currently, operators applied to lists in a list context behave
> > counter-intuitively:
>
> Counter-intuitively is different from consistently. Your title is
> misleading. Perl's ops *are* applied consistently: they consistently
> give the
