Mr. Nobody said:
> --- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> So, to bring this thread back on track *again*, I hopefully offer this
>> summary.
>>
>>
>> 1) Damian's idea of using ~> and <~ as L2R and R2L is well-liked. Thus:
>>
>> @out = grep { ... } map { ... } @in; # (1) (perl5)
>>
>> becomes any of the following:
>>
>> @out = grep { ... } <~ map { ... } <~ @in; # (2) (perl6)
>>
>> @out <~ grep { ... } <~ map { ... } <~ @in; # (3)
>>
>> @in ~> map { ... } ~> grep { ... } ~> @out; # (4)
>>
>> My impression was that this was _instead_ of (1), eliminating the
>> specialized syntax of the map, grep, etc. functions in favor of this
>> more generic piping syntax, but that wasn't explicitly stated. Is that
>> correct?
I hope not. Don't forget that despite the caveats, the "Perl should stay
Perl" RFC was actually accepted.
OK, I could be convinced that there should be a change if it would
simplify and generalise, but I see no point in change for its own sake.
> I have to wonder how many people actually like this syntax, and how many
> only say they do because it's Damian Conway who proposed it.
I trust that we are all sufficiently grown up and devoid of marketing hype
that we can judge suggestions on their own merit.
--
Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pjcj.net
