--- "Adam D. Lopresto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm having trouble this is even being considered. At all. And > especially for these operators.
Heute vektoren, morgen das welt! Uniperl, Uniperl uber alles, Uber alles in der welt! With hyper-states through choose and true(); Masterfully golf scorin' script, Von der << bis an die all(), Von der any() bis an den >> - Uniperl, Uniperl uber alles, Uber alles in der welt! > So you're one of the very few people who bothered to set up unicode, > and now you want to force the rest of us into your own little > "leet" group. Nerp. Hadn't given it a second thought until the whining started about "It's so hard..." I had actually figured that I'd be able to set a keystroke in my editor and that would be the end of it. But then, for no good reason that I can think of, I tried microsoft's help site and found it in about thirty seconds. No need to set up a keyboard macro -- it's part of the OS. I did BBS, though not as a "warez d00d". It's "L33t". > Given the choice between learning how to reconfigure their keyboard, > editor, terminal, fonts, and everything else, or just not learning > perl6, I bet you'd have a LOT of people who get scared away. That sounds a lot like what I said (and to a certain extent still fear) back when -> was first going away. It didn't work then, either. > Face it, too many people think perl is linenoise heavy and random > already. Which is why adding a single character with a single meaning that can be covered in chapter 14 instead of chapter 3 is a workable idea, and why creating an operator called "Jesus, it looks like an ASCII-art version of a dancing penguin in high heels" isn't. "Bow-tie operator", indeed! If @a [>*=<] @b; doesn't scan like rats chewing their way into your cable, what does? > Which brings me to my real question: why these operators? It's not > as if they're even particularly intuitive for this context. They're > quotes. They don't mean "vector" anything, and never have. I could > almost see if the characters in question just screamed the function > in question (sqrt, not equals, not, sum, almost anything like that), > but these are just sort of random. Simple answer: Larry suggested them. And was willing to sacrifice qw functionality to this. Also, I suppose, because of the map() suggestion a while back -- this "operation" is going to wind up taking a huge range of parameters in some not-too-distant future. And @a = @b <<sub>> @c; will read a lot better, when <<sub>> is 8 lines long. > Given how crazy this is all getting, is it absolutely certain that > we're better > off not just making vector operations work without modifiers? I > reread the > apocalypse just now, and I don't really see the problem. The main > argument > against seems to be "perl5 people expect it to be scalar", but perl5 > people > will have to get used to a lot. I think the operators should just be > list > based, and if you want otherwise you can specify "scalar:op" or > convert both > sides to scalars manually (preferably with .length, so it's > absolutely clear > what's meant). It's not absolutely certain. But this discussion was destined to happen, since we're just about out of line noise, but we're nowhere close to being out of clever ideas. =Austin __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
