On Wednesday 16 March 2005 15:40, Autrijus Tang wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:09:40PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote: > > So I'm thinking we'll just go back to "true", both for that reason, > > and because it does syntactically block the naughty meaning of true as > > a term (as long as we don't default true() to $_), as Luke reminded us. > > But "true()" reads weird, and it does not read like an unary (or list) > operator at all to me. As the bikeshedding is still going on, may I > suggest "aye()"? It is the same length as "not()", both are adverbs, > and is rare enough to not conflict with user-defined subs.
A shotgun brainstorming of possible operator names: determine ponder query consider examine veracity inquire bool boolean bin binary propriety
