From: "Nathan Wiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 4:41 PM
Subject: ~ for concat / negation (Re: The Perl 6 Emulator)
> Does anyone else see a problem with =~ ? Plus, it makes the
> pre-plus-concat that many desire impossible, since
At 05:17 AM 6/22/2001 -0700, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
> > In summary:
> >
> >1. I don't like ~ for concat
> >
> >2. But if it does become concat, then we still
> > shouldn't
> > change ~'s current unary meaning
> >
> >
> > Thanks for listening.
> >
> > -Nate
>
>I agree completely. Howev
> In summary:
>
>1. I don't like ~ for concat
>
>2. But if it does become concat, then we still
> shouldn't
> change ~'s current unary meaning
>
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> -Nate
I agree completely. However, this is no longer really a
topic for -internals, it's really a pure
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> > We can have a huge thread, just like before, but until we see any kind
> > of update from Larry as to if he has changed his mind it is all a bit
> > pointless.
>
> For what it's worth, I like it.
>
> > > Does anyone else see a prob
> > For what it's worth, I like it.
>
> So do I, actually... it's sort of growing on me.
Me too. (I think it (~ for concat, ^ for negation) is just fine.)
The "clash" with =~ is disappointing though.
Now if Larry had the cahones to change the =~ operator...
(I find the notion of a short infix
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:49:21 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>> > Does anyone else see a problem with =~ ?
>
>Does anyone else see a problem with "$negated=~$scalar;" ? :)
You forgot the space between the "=" and the "~". And yes, that is a bit
of a problem.
--
Bart.
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
>> We can have a huge thread, just like before, but until we see any kind
>> of update from Larry as to if he has changed his mind it is all a bit
>> pointless.
> For what it's worth, I like i
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:49:21PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> > We can have a huge thread, just like before, but until we see any kind
> > of update from Larry as to if he has changed his mind it is all a bit
> > pointless.
>
> For
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> We can have a huge thread, just like before, but until we see any kind
> of update from Larry as to if he has changed his mind it is all a bit
> pointless.
For what it's worth, I like it.
> > Does anyone else see a problem with =~ ?
