On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 02:55:10PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote: : Since when are we limited to ASCII again? :)
Well, we used some of Latin-1's bracket offerings, and people already carp about that. :) : 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? I will let you ponder the meaning of "reduce" a bit more, and the relationship of that to the respective arity of infixes vs prefixes. We already have hyper prefixes, if that's what you're thinking... : Tagentially related: why doesn't simple &+ or &<+> work for what we're : currently spelling &[+] (and which is more specifically spelled : &infix:<+>)? Because it would conflict with twigils and such, not to mention alphabetic infixes. What would &xx mean? Larry
