On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > --- Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > for @a -> $x<; @b -> $y { $x = $y[5] }; > > Yes!!! > > (Except for the '<'. That's feigen-ugly. *shrug* You may not like the aesthetics, but my point still stands: "is rw" is too long for something we're going to do fairly often. Give me any one- or two- character marker you want that means "rw" (if "ro" is the default) or "r" (if "rw" is the default). > I prefer default=ro, though, > because that let's the optimizer do more by default.) I don't feel strongly enough about this to argue it. Personally, I prioritize readablility over ease-of-optimization...I let Moore's law take care of speed. Other people, who work in other problem domains than I do, may need to have other priorities. > I proposed the multiple arrow thing a long while back, but it didn't > work out because of precedence with comma and because of > topicalizing/binding/etc. > > But that was before semicolon which can have a different precedence > from arrow. And screw the binding -- it just looks right: > > for @first -> $a; > @pairs -> $b is rw, $c; > { > print "woo-hoo!\n"; > } You're right, that does look good...but you had to manually insert whitespace in to make it look good. And (assuming that you used a TAB to indent the '@pairs...' line), assuming that my TAB settings are the same as yours. The problem is, if we make those assumptions, I can even make the current syntax look (reasonably) good: for @a; @b -> $x is rw; $y { .... } --Dks