On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 11:50, Dave Whipp wrote:
> 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.
Yep, and since ~~ auto-topicalizes its lhs for its rhs, your binary ??
is all you need. I wish I'd seen your message before I sent my recent
one, as I would have just started from there.
Precedence worries me a bit, since I don't know how ~~ and ?? would fit,
but it's certainly nice to have this construct use a generic Perl 6
operator like ~~ and not have to have any ternary constructs in the
language.
--
â 781-324-3772
â [EMAIL PROTECTED]
â http://www.ajs.com/~ajs
