Austin Hastings wrote: > It has been pointed out once already that we already talked about this, > and I for one am in favor of the general version of it. > > The original discussion posited an "adverbial comparison", viz: > C<$a eq:ref $b>. Which, looking at your proposal, is very close to > C<$a =:= $b>, because I'm reading that as "equals, under assignment".
What was decided about the adverbial ops -- did we ever get a confirmation or rejection on that proposal, or did it die in the ether? I like the idea lots (though I still would argue that identity-compare =:= is important enough conceptually to be a separate case.) My only worry is that we make sure they don't cannibalize their own namespace. For example, to create an adverbial eq that works like this: $a eq:soundex $b; I wonder if it shouldn't be declared as: sub infix:eq:soundex ($a,$b) {...} as opposed to the simpler: sub soundex ($a,$b) {...} I.E. would you ever use the 'soundex' adverb without the 'eq', and if not, mightn't you just call it 'eq:soundex' and be done with it? (If we made the colon allowable for the case of infix & other ops declarations?) That way you could have things like $a eq:foo $b; $a gt:foo $b; $a lt:foo $b; $a +:foo $b; and the various declarations of 'foo' wouldn't get in each other's way, even if you had a whole mess of 'em. MikeL