On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: > As a productive prefix, it has limits, but there are actually very few
: > operators that make sense to be bitified, and none of them look like a
: > method name.
:
: Could users redefine how the prefixes work and get the productions for
: free? If so, a whole crop of unanticipated bit operators might come
: into play.
Well, anything is possible if you mung the grammar, but but I don't
see how dot could be made into a general prefix like hyper, or you'd
mess up things like .[] and .{}.
Larry
