Me writes:
> > > A ^ prefix visually interferes a lot more
> >
> > 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.
>
> Maybe. I slightly prefer the first line right now.
> But it's close, and I think I've gotten too used to
> both notations to know what I'd think if I saw one
> or other for the first time, and I don't know what
> I'd think after a month of use of one or other. As
> I said, it's close. This will defintely be my last
> email on the topic...
>
actually , ones we decide that ^ *is necessary for vectorization , we
can allow other brackets , optional brackets ( where unambiguous ) ,
and spaces inside the brackets :
@a ^+= @b
@a ^[+]= @b
@a ^(+)= @b
@a ^( + )= @b
@a ^{ + }= @b
@a ^{+}= @b
@a ^[ + ]= @b
all that can *coexist* !
> There's a couple other reasons to go for ^[op].
>
> One is that [] is more obviously indicative to a
> newbie that there is some array aspect to how
> the op applies than ^ (or backtick) would be.
>
> Another is that bracketing works better to indicate
> the difference between the two ...= variants that
> might be useful:
>
> @a ^[+=] @b
> @a ^[+]= @b # vectorize the +, not the =
>
> @a ^+= @b
> @a ^+^= @b # vectorize the +, not the = ?!?
>
>
> > '^' is being used as a sigil for an operator, and that all
> > you need is one keystroke in order to use it.
>
> On my keyboard it's two (shift and the 6 key).
>
>
> > Oh by the way. IMO 'vector' operators should be the
> > proper term.
>
> Oops. Yes.
>
> --
> ralph
>
>
