Since when are we limited to ASCII again? :) If this is just a question of prefix vs infix telling you what [+] is shorthand for, OK. But it seems there's still scope for conflict between the two meanings of the square brackets. I mean, prefix ops can be used in reduce, too, right?
Tagentially related: why doesn't simple &+ or &<+> work for what we're currently spelling &[+] (and which is more specifically spelled &infix:<+>)? On 5/28/09, Larry Wall <la...@wall.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 09:43:58AM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote: > : So that much makes sense. But I still think the two different > : meanings of square brackets in operators are going to confuse people. > > You're welcome to introduce more bracketing characters into ASCII. :P > > But seriously, this is one of those tagmemics things, where an A can > be *used* as a B without actually being one. (For example, a noun > can be used as a verb.) I think of [op] is the unambiguous name of > an infix operator (bare op is of course useful when unambiguous), and > [op] can be *used* as a prefix operator, or as the short name of the > function when prefixed by the noun marker &. Note that when you say > > &func() > > you are, in fact, using the noun &func as a verb. > > Anyway, I suspect people are generally pretty good at differentiating > such things from the visual context. > > Larry > -- Sent from my mobile device Mark J. Reed <markjr...@gmail.com>
