Kara Perlistoj, the zip operator is a useful one. I like it a lot. But I've been writing zip() all the time, even though I think an infix operator is nicer. (Not for for though, because you also have commas in the pointy sub's parameter list.)
However, the broken bar is in my opinion a bad choice. As some have pointed out, because the similarity with |. Historically, 1, l, I and | have always aided in obfuscation. Adding a(nother) broken bar to it would be a mistake. One obvious reason for reaching out to unicode characters is the restricted number of non-alphanumeric characters in ASCII. But why do infix operators have to be non-alphanumeric? It has never been a problem for 'x', has it? And with Perl 6 we even get an infix xx operator. I think the ?(yen) suggestion is great, especially since it does indeed look like a zipper. Still, I would very much like an ASCII infix alternative for zip(). I propose z as the ASCII alternative for the infix zip operator (either broken bar or yen). With some imagination, it is a good candidate for representing interleaving. Besides that, zip() starts with a z so it is easy to remember even if you don't think it looks like something that zips. Regards, Juerd
