> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> From: Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 05:45:01 +0000
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
> Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
> say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix
> superposition ops. I'm a big fan of any/all/one/none, I just think
> that
>
> one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $e, $f))
>
> Is a good deal more intention revealing than the superficially
> appealing than
>
> ($a & $b & $c) ^ ( $d | $e | $f )
>
> which takes rather more decoding. And if you *do* want to use such
> operators, surely you could just do
>
> use ops ':superpositions';
>
> in an appropriate lexical scope. Am I missing something?
Uh huh. This:
if $x == 1 | 3 | 6 { print "Small triangular" }
I imagine it will not take long for these to sink in to people's
brains, and become used in very clever (and readable) ways.
If you read | as "or," and & as "and," instead of trying to translate
them to "any" and "all," things get very nice.
Plus, a scripting (or, in the case of P6, high level) language with
such small bitwise ops gives me the shivers. C, sure, they're common.
Perl, no, not usually. I was even dissatisfied with them in C++,
which is a high- low-level language.
Luke
