* Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-21 20:35]: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:21:01PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > It seems to me that this is too big a semantic choice to make > > merely by omission of a single (and quite dainty) character. > > I'd rather express this by forcing a context on the operand. > > The precedent so far also seems to be a rule-of-thumb that "I > > have to write more when I want to be explicit". > > But I would argue that it's the vectorization of the argument > that is special, and that's precisely why it should only be > used on the argument that is to be considered "plural". The > underlying psychology here is that most people assume that all > these operators take scalar (singular) arguments.
Good point; however, this means different way to think of the vector ops than we had so far. Basically, we're moving from the realm of vector ops to that of vectorized operands. In light of this, I think Austin's proposal of marking the operands as vectorized makes a lot of sense. It was an unexpected that had me taken aback for a moment, but I like it more the more I think about it. It *feels* right to emphasize vectorization as something that happens to an operand, rather than something that's a property of the operation. -- Regards, Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
