Michael Lazzaro writes:
>
> On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 01:05 PM, Hodges, Paul wrote:
> >Didn't know "is" would do that. Good to know!
> >And in my meager defense, I did reference MikeL's operator synopsis as
> >of
> >3/25/03, which said ^[op] might be a synonym for <<>> or >><< (Sorry,
> >no
> >fancy chars here. :)
>
> Hey, that was *March*! ;-) The fossil records from that time are
> fragmentary, at best.
>
> I don't think I ever saw any further reference to the ^[op] syntax
> staying alive; I assume that means it's dead. Last I heard, which was
> admittedly around the same time frame, we'd have the non-Unicode-using
> >>op<<, and a Unicode synonym æopæ, and that's it.
>
> There were also vaguely threatening proposals to have <<op>> and >>op<<
> do slightly different things. I assume that is also dead, and that
> <<op>> is (typically) a syntax error.
Ack. No, slightly different things would be a very bad idea.
At the moment, as most of you probably know, they do *very* different
things. >>op<< vectorizes the operator, and <<some stuff>> is
equivalent to qw{some stuff}.
And as far as I know, << and >> are exactly equivalent to æ and æ in all
cases.
Luke
> If anyone in the know knows otherwise, plz verify for Piers' summary
> and the future fossil record.
>
> MikeL
>
