Larry wrote:
I've actually got my eye on ≈ (U+2248 ALMOST EQUAL TO) as a
replacement for ~~ someday in the distant future.
I suppose it could be argued that we should use ≅ (U+2245
APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO) instead. That's what =~ was supposed to
represent, after all...
Yeah, either of those work. But neither is entirely satisfactory, since
there's nothing "almost" or "approximate" about the matching the operator
does. We obviously need a unicode "IS LIKE UNTO" codepoint. ;-)
You know, separate streams in a for loop are not going to be that
common in practic, so maybe we should look around a little harder for
a supercomma that isn't a semicolon. Now *that* would be a big step
in reducing ambiguity...
Amen.
Even if we limit ourselves to Latin1 for now,
Which I suspect we should seriously consider. Maybe leave 9+ bit
operators to Perl 7. ;-)
I'd avoid using standard signs like multiply × and divide ÷ for
non-standard purposes though. (Not that we can exactly use multiply
even for its standard purpose--there's an awfully heavy resemblance
between × and x, at least in the typical sans serif font.)
That's why I semi-seriously suggested replacing C<x> by C<×>.
For some reason alphabetic operators (at least, those that are
pretending to be symbols) really bug me.
It would be really funny to use cent ¢, pound £, or yen ¥ as a sigil, though...
Hmmmm. Given that a pound is worth more than a dollar, maybe £ is the sigil
for pairs.
;-)
Damian
