[svn:perl6-synopsis] r13592 - doc/trunk/design/syn

2007-02-20 Thread larry
Author: larry Date: Tue Feb 20 09:35:53 2007 New Revision: 13592 Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod Log: Conjecturalized the delegation-via-hash syntax for now. Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod == --- doc/t

Y not

2007-02-20 Thread Larry Wall
I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else. The current Y has at least four strikes against it: * It's an ASCII version of a cute Unicode picture, but other than that, the picture it doesn't remind you of "zip" at all, especially in the Y form.

Re: Y not

2007-02-20 Thread chromatic
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 12:42, Larry Wall wrote: > 'Course, if someone goes ahead and adds the Y combinator, one must > naturally begin to wonder what the YY combinator would be...  :-) Obviously it generates a function so anonymous that it can't even refer to itself. I call it the depresse

Re: Y not

2007-02-20 Thread Thomas Wittek
Larry Wall schrieb: > I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else. Very probably I missed something as I'm only a distant observer of the Perl6 development: Why not just call it "zip"?! There is a function called zip, wouldn't it be possible to create an operator wi

Re: Y not

2007-02-20 Thread Jonathan Lang
Thomas Wittek wrote: Larry Wall schrieb: > I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else. Very probably I missed something as I'm only a distant observer of the Perl6 development: Why not just call it "zip"?! There is a function called zip, wouldn't it be possible t

Re: Y not

2007-02-20 Thread Larry Wall
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 12:49:20AM +0100, Thomas Wittek wrote: : Larry Wall schrieb: : > I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else. : : Very probably I missed something as I'm only a distant observer of the : Perl6 development: Why not just call it "zip"?! : There

Re: Y not

2007-02-20 Thread Joe Gottman
Larry Wall wrote: Hmm, but then what corresponds to XX? I'd be more inclined to go the other way and say that you can transform any list infix form to the corresponding function form: @a ZZ @b ZZ @c -> zip operator ZZ(@a; @b; @c) -> zip function @a XX @b XX @c -> cross operator

Re: Y not

2007-02-20 Thread Damian Conway
[Off-list] I'd be more inclined to go the other way and say that you can transform any list infix form to the corresponding function form: @a ZZ @b ZZ @c -> zip operator ZZ(@a; @b; @c) -> zip function @a XX @b XX @c -> cross operator XX(@a; @b; @c) -> cross function @a X*

Re: Y not

2007-02-20 Thread Damian Conway
On 21/02/07, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [Off-list] Apparently not. Just pretend I'm not here. ;-) Damian

Re: Y not

2007-02-20 Thread Larry Wall
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 08:50:07PM -0500, Joe Gottman wrote: : Larry Wall wrote: : >Hmm, but then what corresponds to XX? I'd be more inclined to go : >the other way and say that you can transform any list infix form to : >the corresponding function form: : > : >@a ZZ @b ZZ @c -> zip operator

Re: Y not

2007-02-20 Thread Jonathan Lang
Damian Conway wrote: > I'd be more inclined to go > the other way and say that you can transform any list infix form to > the corresponding function form: > > @a ZZ @b ZZ @c -> zip operator > ZZ(@a; @b; @c) -> zip function > > @a XX @b XX @c -> cross operator > XX(@a; @b; @c) ->