On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote: : > @x [+]= @y; : : I guess that's OK looking, tho either is fine with me.
My only syntactic quibble with [+] is that it's officially ambiguous when it's a unary operator: @a = [+]@b could also be the start of @a = [+1, +2, +3] Or worse: sub x; @a = [x]@b; Except there isn't a unary C<x>. But I don't think that's a real problem. The other potential problem is that we might get a bit of visual interference with real subscripts like @a[1.. :2] [+] @b[1] But that's probably okay. Another trouble spot is @a = [-][1,2,3,4,5]; That's not a problem with builtins, but what about sub foo (); sub prefix:foo ($x); @a = [foo][1,2,3,4,5]; And how soon till someone asks for @a = {$_ * 2}[1,2,3,4,5]; I kinda like the possibility of distinction between [+]= and [+=], even if there isn't one really. my Dog @a [.]= new; is also a bit clever. As for getting back to ^ with xor, that's also pretty okay by me. Oh, another thing in favor of [+] is that it's also a good place to require a space before an infix : However, I think we now need to vectorpause and hear from the : eigenLarry (that is, let the superpositions of Larry collapse to a : discrete state), before we superget ourselves too worked up on our : eigensolution, here. I like "eigenstates" about as much as Damian likes "X". Larry