On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
: Larry mused:
:
:
: > Now I'm wondering whether these should be split into:
: >
: > +& +| +! - bitwise operations on int
: > +&= +|= +!=
: >
: > ~& ~| ~! - bitwise operations on str
: > ~&= ~|= ~!=
:
: I think this is UME (Unnecessary Multiplication of Entities), especially
: given:
:
: > +$x .| +$y
: > ~$x .| ~$y
Well, yes, but what does
+$x .| ~$y
do? I guess in a multimethod world it's too ambiguous to dispatch...
We're also missing the actual C operators that are guaranteed to return 0 or 1:
$x ?& $y # C's $x && $y
$x ?| $y # C's $x || $y
$x ?! $y # C's, er, !!$x ^ !!$y
: > I think a good case can be made for *not* defining the corresponding
: > super assignment operators: &=, |=, and umm...I guess it would have
: > to be !=, er...
:
: I suspect disjunctive superpositions will get a great deal
: of use as sets, and so the ability to add an element to an
: existing set:
:
: $set |= $new_element;
:
: might be appreciated. But it's no big thing.
Yes, but we certainly can't have !=. Another argument for not using
! for xor. I guess _ is available as a kind of | laying down.
Can't have "x". We could use "o" as short for "one or other".
$either = 1 o 2;
$set o= 1;
$comp = o $mask;
if $x oo $y
$c = $a ~o $b
That's very distinctive. I think I could get to like it.
: > I'd still love to the double angles for a qw synonym.
:
: I was hoping we'd be able to generalize << from the heredoc introducer to
: the file slurp operator. But I can certainly see the attraction of:
:
: use enum <<d'oh ray me far solar tea>>;
:
: ;-)
Actually, I meant the French double-angle quotes.
Larry
