HaloO,
Luke wrote:
> > > ?? !! ain't bad either.
> >
> > It's definitely much better that sabotaging the
> > (highly useful) // operator
> > within (highly useful) ternaries.
>
> I guess the thing that I really think is nice is getting :: out of
> that role and into the type-only domain.
Right. To make :: indicate type or meta was my primary concern.
So I see the following situation:
unwanted
?? ::
ASCII replacements
?? // # two binaries
?? \\ # I would like it as chaining binary nor
?? !! # wasn't binary ! the none() constructor
# and !! the binary nor---at least in Pugs?
Latin1 replacements
?? ¦¦
?? ¡¡
?? ¿¿
@Larry's choice?
--
TSa
