On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Larry Wall writes:
: >
: > So despite the beauty of
: >
: > @a [+] @b
: >
: > I think it cannot survive in its current form. It overloads square
: > brackets too heavily.
: >
: > Larry
: >
:
: so may be @a <+> @b
:
: @a < => > @b
: @a < , > @b
: @a < .= > replace ( /<foo>/ -> { "bar" } )
:
: but
:
: @c = @a < <=> > @b
:
: this work since we do not have unary > or < and parser
: will be able to distinguish . also , sinse <...> readline is term , it
: does not interfere with <op> . am I right ?
:
: to me <op> is visually more distinctive and less heavy then [op] .
: but now it visually interfere with <iterator> and <regexp> .
As well as all the operators containing < or >, which is lots.
I think <> is more problematic than []. At least all the normal
operators don't contain square brackets.
Larry
