On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, John Williams wrote:
> > > : It's rare enough to need bitwise things in Perl 5 (outside golf). I'm > > > : hoping that it'll be even rarer in Perl 6, as better interfaces are > > > : designed for the things which at present require flipping individual > > > : bits. > > > > > > I almost wonder if it's wrong to waste ~ on it... > > > > > > That would be an argument for b| and b&, I suppose. > > > > That looks like about the best. When rare things get too punctuation-heavy, > > people start to get really confused. > > I agree. b| and b& are the first operators which look good to me. Most > of the other proposals look like line-noise, and I would hate to have to > start agreeing with perl-detractors. Bitand and and bitor work for me > too. > Well, let's look at a few possibilities: 1) if( $vec bit| $mask bit& $mask2 ) 2) if( $vec b| $mask b& $mask2 ) 3) if( $vec |b $mask &b $mask2 ) 4) if( $vec |bit $mask &bit $mask2 ) I think I would have an easier time explaining #4 to someone ( "What does the 'b' stand for?" "It stands for 'bit'" "Why not just write 'bit' then'?" ) Plus, what is '|bit'? It's an 'or' operator primarily, and it's of the 'bit' flavor. 'Though I'm guessing that asking to have an operator whose first character is '&' is Perl heresy. I just thought it was interesting to see what it would look like in code. -Jonathan Shapiro This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.