y> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm > Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:39:59 -0700 (MST) > From: John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Nov 2002 17:40:00.0029 (UTC) FILETIME=[B38AC4D0:01C281CD] > X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/ > > On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Ed Peschko wrote: > > > Michael Lazarro 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? Reading the threads, it seems to have > > gotten lost in the shuffle. > > Personally, I would like to see us come full circle back to just ^ again > too. > > The main problem seems to be that we want ^ and ^^ for xor-ing things, > so ^^ could be either a logical-xor or a vector-one-superposition. > > So what if we just made the [] optional? Then all the original > hyper/vector documentation is still valid. (The meanings of ^+ ^|| ^<<= > etc are all non-ambiguous.) For the ambiguous case, ^^ is logical-xor > because it is used more often, and vector-one-superposition is > unambiguously ^[^] .
You know, I like it. In any "potentially ambiguous" cases, the non-vector version would be preferred. It doesn't seem exactly "elegant," but there's some appeal that I'm drawn to. Luke
