Austin Hastings wrote:
> It has been pointed out once already that we already talked about this,
> and I for one am in favor of the general version of it.
>
> The original discussion posited an "adverbial comparison", viz:
> C<$a eq:ref $b>. Which, looking at your proposal, is very close to
> C<$a =:= $b>, because I'm reading that as "equals, under assignment".
What was decided about the adverbial ops -- did we ever get a
confirmation or rejection on that proposal, or did it die in the ether?
I like the idea lots (though I still would argue that identity-compare
=:= is important enough conceptually to be a separate case.) My only
worry is that we make sure they don't cannibalize their own namespace.
For example, to create an adverbial eq that works like this:
$a eq:soundex $b;
I wonder if it shouldn't be declared as:
sub infix:eq:soundex ($a,$b) {...}
as opposed to the simpler:
sub soundex ($a,$b) {...}
I.E. would you ever use the 'soundex' adverb without the 'eq', and if
not, mightn't you just call it 'eq:soundex' and be done with it? (If we
made the colon allowable for the case of infix & other ops
declarations?) That way you could have things like
$a eq:foo $b;
$a gt:foo $b;
$a lt:foo $b;
$a +:foo $b;
and the various declarations of 'foo' wouldn't get in each other's way,
even if you had a whole mess of 'em.
MikeL
