Re: Different higher-order func notation? (was Re: RFC 23 (v1) Higher order functions)

[Mike Pastore]

Ken Fox wrote:
> 
> > - ^foo is the placeholder 'foo'
> 
> That already has perfectly good meaning: XOR with the function foo().

Good point. Back to the drawing board?

> > Although, I suppose '&' would not work.
> 
> Why not? I think it would work great.

Well, what's the different between the placeholder &foo and the sub
&foo? That's the main reason why. Also, '&' already has a perfectly good
meaning: binary AND with the function foo(). :) Not trying to be a
smartass, but I think you understand what I'm trying to say.

I think if we have $var OP ^plh (eg $foo + ^bar) coders will know what
that means, simply because you can't have a binary operation without a
left-side, and you can't have two operators in a row (typically). IE:

$foo ^ $bar      # obvious binary op
atan2($pi, ^zot) # obvious placeholder (shamlessly ripped)
$foo + ^ $bar    # invalid!! (two ops in a row)
$bar = ^ $zot    # invalid!! (no left-side)
$zot **= ^foo    # "what's that binary op doing there.. 
                 # ..oh, that's a placeholder"

By the same token '&' would work too, but then we run into the
placeholder vs. explicit subroutine issue.

I hope this clarifies things (if nothing else, the fact that *I* am
confused :)

Mike