I'd like to point out one thing that I'm not sure of. It seems like the
original proposal only allowed for the operators to change terms around.
So given the same (1)-(4) from the message, (4) is exactly the same as (1), and
(2) and (3) are exactly the same as each other and as
@out = @in.map({ ... }).grep({ ...}); # (5)
I guess what I'm trying to point out is that the user still has to know which
syntax is really natively supported, and can only use ~> and <~ as crutches for
reversing that. IOW, we can't just eliminate the global "map {block} @list"
function, or "@list ~> map {block}" simply won't work (but could be written as
"@list.map({block})". Somehow this feels even more confusing than ever.
> 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?
>
> 2) You might be able to combine L2R and R2L piping in one statement.
> Maybe.
>
> 3) How pretty you think the above is depends almost entirely on how the
> tilde is rendered in your font.
Yes, it wasn't until I got on a different computer with ~ centered that I
understood why anyone even conceived of this. But Unicode is worse, since I
have NEVER gotten ANY of those to work. Apparently my gnome-terminal/ssh/less
combination just doesn't like unicode. But this is perl, so who cares if
anyone can read it, right?
>
> 4) Some people like the idea of having Unicode operators in perl6.
> Some don't. There are issues with it. Larry hasn't come up with a
> ruling yet. We should wait for his decision.
>
> 5) Sarcasm is, apparently, dead.
I'm not dead yet! I'm feeling much better, really.
>
> MikeL
>
--
Adam Lopresto ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/
What exactly do we mean when we use the word "semantics"?
