Larry Wall writes: > > Well, "v" for vector makes a little more sense, maybe. Could be lots of things: > > @a *[+] @b > @a .[+] @b > @a =[+] @b > @a ![+] @b > @a ^[+] @b > @a _[+] @b > @a :[+] @b > @a '[+] @b > @a v[+] @b > > There's a problem with v[] for postfix ops, though. You'd be required > to use the space-eater after alphanumerics, for instance: > > @foo _v[.]method > @foo _v[++] > > And the space would also be required! So I don't think "h" or "v" will fly. > Of the others, : seems to work about the best, but maybe that's an illusion > that evaporates when we start using adverbials. > > The * has obvious mnemonic value of the splat sort, but also mentally clashes > with the notion of multiplication when using mathematical ops inside. > > Larry > > >
v looks like ^ upside down . so maybe @a ^[ += ] @b @a^[++] * we can allow spaces inside [ ] * ^ does not clash with xor-staff * and make [ ] around vectorized operator optional where possible or appropriate . * this brings us back to more intuitive and not so shouting ^ and xor is ok too . @a ^[ ^^ ] @b @a ^[+^] @a ^[ ^ ] @b @a ^[ ^^= ] @b ~^ - force to string context, complement arcadi