"Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous.
> > I'd even prefer a longhand:
> >
> > $foo either 0 or split();
>
> The overloading of 'or' there is (IMHO) far more dangerous than the
> overloading of '::' being discussed in this thread.
Not necessarily. You're assuming that C<either> in a ternary operator. It
could be a binary operator, defined as {eval $RHS if $LHS; return $LHS}. For
that interpretation, one might choose a different name (e.g. C<implies>).
We could actually define ?? as a binary operator in much the same way.
Dave.
