On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 01:36:20PM -0600, Me wrote: > > > 1) Need a definite syntax for hypers > > > ^[op] and <<op>> > > > have been most seriously proposed -- something that keeps a > > > bracketed syntax, but solves ambiguity issues. > > > > hm. What was wrong with just '^' again? > > Right. I didn't have a problem with ^ in the first place. > > But... > > A ^ prefix visually interferes a lot more with the op being > hypered. I didn't understand that until I first saw use of > square brackets (interestingly, use of angle brackets > didn't grab my attention, though that may have been > due to other factors).
I know it clutters up things a bit, that's my very argument; that ^[ ] clutters up things even *more*. especially, with use of arrays: @array[1,2,3] ^[+=] @array[4,5,6]; bleah. @array[1,2,3] ^+= @array[4,5,6]; Not much of a improvement, but its palpable. There's some comfort knowing that '^' is being used as a sigil for an operator, and that all you need is one keystroke in order to use it. I guess it depends on how much hyperoperators are meant to be used. The more they are, the shorter the operator should be. Oh by the way. IMO 'vector' operators should be the proper term. Looking at the above sentence, the term 'hyperoperator' should be quietly euthanized. (or quickly shot.) Ed
