On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 02:57:22PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > I find those difficult to read--too wordy. At the moment I'm leaning towards > > $a .| $b # bitwise or > $a .& $b # bitwise and > $a .! $b # bitwise xor > .! $b # bitwise not > $a ! $b # logical xor > ! $b # logical not > > I think the "." looks kind of like a bit. A ":" would also work, and risk > less confusion with method call syntax. But the "." is better at getting out > of the way visually.
I knew you'd see things my way eventually :-) > As a productive prefix, it has limits, but there are actually very few > operators that make sense to be bitified, and none of them look like a > method name. Could users redefine how the prefixes work and get the productions for free? If so, a whole crop of unanticipated bit operators might come into play. > I like the notion that binary ! means that the two sides are sharing > one "not". That's the definition of XOR in a nutshell. > > I also like the idea that ~ is entirely freed up for some other > nefarious use. Neat x 2 -Scott -- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
