> Hyperoperators: > > I sort of understand it, but don't really grok it. I can sort of > thing of ways it might eliminate the need for a few maps and > foreaches. Damian, might I request some clarification in Exogenesis?
Well, I'll probably clarify them in Exegesis instead. "External birth" would seem a bit extreme here. ;-) > Polymorphic comparisons: > > I'm firmly with Larry here. I have oogy feelings about $foo == $bar > doing different things depending on the value of $foo and $bar. I'm > also a more than a little afraid at what 42 == "forty-two" should do. It's no longer a problem. Multiway comparisons and NaN-ification on numerified non-numeric strings fix it. See Exegisis 3 tomorrow. > Backtracking: > > Ok, I don't get it at all. Damian, clarification? Nothing to clarify. Larry punted (to a later Apocalypse). Okay. That's a cop-out. He's basically saying that you can write C<andthen> and C<orthen> yourself as: my sub operator:andthen is prec(\&operator:and) (&block1, &block2) { while (block1()) { return 1 if block2(); } return 0; } my sub operator:orthen is prec(\&operator:or) (&block1, &block2) { while (1) { return 1 if block1(); return 1 if block2(); } } but that it would be better if C<block1>'s lexical scope were preserved until the outcome of C<block2> is known. Larry has a marvellous proof of this (involving continuations), but as there wasn't enough room in the margin of this Apocalypse to explain it, he'll be doing so in a later design document. ;-) Damian