-- On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:37:09 Michael Lazzaro wrote: >OK, by my count -- after editing to reflect Larry's notes -- only a few >issues remain before the ops list can be completed. > >---- > >1) Need a definitive syntax for hypers, > ^[op] and +op; > have been most seriously proposed -- something that keeps a > bracketed syntax, but solves ambiguity issues.
Maybe this is a bit radical (but hey, I'm not ashamed) but why not do what Larry proposed way back in Apoc. 1, namely, grabbing <> from iterators. Angel Faus already made a proposal for grabbing them for a qw() variant. I'd prefer stealing them for <hyperop> meself. I love hyperops (vector ops, if you prefer), can't easily type +hyperop;, and ^[hyperop] leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe we could give fuel to Cozen's fire by totally dropping consistency, and generalize hypers to some quote like variant allowing you to define your own delimiters. Hey! then maybe hyper is spelled map . . . -Erik -- On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:37:09 Michael Lazzaro wrote: >OK, by my count -- after editing to reflect Larry's notes -- only a few >issues remain before the ops list can be completed. > >---- > >1) Need a definitive syntax for hypers, > ^[op] and +op; > have been most seriously proposed -- something that keeps a > bracketed syntax, but solves ambiguity issues. > >2) Possible inclusion of unary prefix ^, meaning "complement". > (Assuming doesn't conflict with (1)) > >3) Possible inclusion of "like"/"unlike" or similar as synonyms for ~~ >!~. Which we don't have to decide now. > >---- > >All other op issues, by my count, revolve around the meanings of >specific hyperop constructs. There is one, overriding question with >the hyperops, which is the precise relation between an op, an >assignment op, and their (three!) hyperop equivs: > > A op B > A op= B > A ^[op] B > A ^[op=] B > A ^[op]= B > >If we can formalize the precise relationship between the three hypers >in the presence of scalar and list (and hash?) values for A and B, I >believe we can answer nearly all the hyperop questions definitively. >For example: > >@a ^[op] @b # array v array >$a ^[op] @b # scalar v array >@a ^[op] $b # array v scalar >$a ^[op] $b # scalar v scalar > >@a ^[op=] @b # array v array >$a ^[op=] @b # scalar v array >@a ^[op=] $b # array v scalar >$a ^[op=] $b # scalar v scalar > >@a ^[op]= @b # array v array >$a ^[op]= @b # scalar v array >@a ^[op]= $b # array v scalar >$a ^[op]= $b # scalar v scalar > >Some of these are nonsensical, some of them aren't. So which are >which, and can someone demonstrate that the rule holds true for ALL >hyperoperators, as opposed to just MOST? ;-) > >MikeL > > ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
