Michael Lazzaro writes: > OK, by my count -- after editing to reflect Larry's notes -- only a few > issues remain before the ops list can be completed. > > ---- > > 1) Need a definitive syntax for hypers, > ^[op] and «op» > have been most seriously proposed -- something that keeps a > bracketed syntax, but solves ambiguity issues. > > 2) Possible inclusion of unary prefix ^, meaning "complement". > (Assuming doesn't conflict with (1)) > > 3) Possible inclusion of "like"/"unlike" or similar as synonyms for ~~ > !~. Which we don't have to decide now. > > ---- > > All other op issues, by my count, revolve around the meanings of > specific hyperop constructs. There is one, overriding question with > the hyperops, which is the precise relation between an op, an > assignment op, and their (three!) hyperop equivs: > > A op B > A op= B > A ^[op] B > A ^[op=] B > A ^[op]= B > > If we can formalize the precise relationship between the three hypers > in the presence of scalar and list (and hash?) values for A and B, I > believe we can answer nearly all the hyperop questions definitively.
as I understand , every such construct will be "macro preprocessed" parser and in "real" program ( that is in parrot ) there will be no vector operations in perl sence , only as optimizations . so I think that if we are talking about oprator list , we just can state ( and we did ) that such operators are present in language . their prcize functionality may be defined or changed by pragma or module. what I want to say is that we definitely have ^[op] staff so somebody in or out of sanity will ask ( or make a mistake ) what is %a ^[op] %b and the answer already is a question of ( Apo 29 ? ). the language have beasts $x, @y, %z and they can talh through op , ^[op] , ... so they will , or at least try . although by the laws of jungle something can be made a taboo . But thats life... arcadi .
