On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:21:38PM +0100, Aaron Crane wrote: > Vaguely heretical, I know, but I'd be inclined to do something like this: > > Perl 5 Proposed Perl 6 > $x && $y $x & $y > $x || $y $x | $y
Larry just added nice character doubling ops to be more consistent and here you want to take two of them away? :-) > $x & $y bitand($x, $y) > $x | $y bitor($x, $y) > > Using functions instead of operators for these operations seems reasonable > to me given how often they're useful. How about these? $x band $y $x bor $y Of course, then people will probably expect these too: $x bshl $y $x bshr $y $x bxor $y Hrm ... sysopen(FOO,"foo", O_WRONLY bor O_CREAT bor O_TEXT) sysopen(FOO,"foo", bor O_WRONLY, O_CREAT, O_TEXT) :-( As long as we're in fantasy-land, how about these? $x .& $y $x .| $y Those look like bit operations to me :-) > I'm not especially fond of the names bitand and bitor, but they're > accurate, reasonably short, and have prior art in C and C++. Not all prior art is necessarily good art :-) > Two things about this proposal: > > * This leaves && and || available for other purposes, but I can't > off the top of my head think of anything else I'd want them for. Then why muck with them? Just munge the bitwise operators. > * Does this make it harder to write overloaded bitwise ops for your > classes? No harder than it was before especially given that you can warp the syntax however you please. -Scott -- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]