At 10:45 AM 7/29/2002 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: >[Maybe we should have a competition to suggest the most crazy three character >operator - ie state your sequence of three characters (not necessarily ASCII, >but it helps), state their name, and state their purpose (including whether >listop, binop, uniop, precedence, associativity or whatever else helps make >your entry more humorous. So presumably there could be a :-) operator, but >offhand I can't think of something plausible it could do. And does the >tie-fighter need an X-wing operator to complement it? (not sure what that >one would look like, let alone what it would do)]
Thats funny, but you have a point there. The VM and assembler does not need to provide every operator as an new 'op'. Eventually, languages with funky operators need to start thinking about implementing them as methods or such. Or Parrot will end up a very fat, lazy bird waddling around eating all the food. -Melvin [This means we would actually have to _implement_ methods and classes but that's another tale]
