Re: Re: RFC: new logical operator

[jadams01]

Randal L. Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Sam No, but is syntactically equivalent to and in English.  It
Sam just implies that the second condition is not generally what
Sam you'd expect if the first was true.

Randal Maybe in the interest of huffman encoding, we could make
Randal it even_though. :)

Or we could compromise on despite.

But (sigh) when I first looked at this proposal, I thought, Now what the heck is he 
trying to say that 'and' doesn't cover?

Is it really syntactic sugar if it's confusing at first glance?

 John A

Re: Re: RFC: new logical operator

[Austin Hastings]

It can't be that confusing at first glance if English dedicates a slot
way up in the huffman table to the word, eh?

print ; 
 if ($need_eol but $current_column  21);

OTOH, this might become an and grep-not operator for (was it
Damian?)'s quantum operators:

 @y = all(@x) but { /^anti/ };

(Or however that was supposed to work...)

TFIC,

=Austin


--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Randal L. Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Sam No, but is syntactically equivalent to and in English.  It
 Sam just implies that the second condition is not generally what
 Sam you'd expect if the first was true.
 
 Randal Maybe in the interest of huffman encoding, we could make
 Randal it even_though. :)
 
 Or we could compromise on despite.
 
 But (sigh) when I first looked at this proposal, I thought, Now what
 the heck is he trying to say that 'and' doesn't cover?
 
 Is it really syntactic sugar if it's confusing at first glance?
 
  John A


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com

Re: Re: RFC: new logical operator

[Melvin Smith]

At 09:47 AM 2/21/2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Randal L. Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Sam No, but is syntactically equivalent to and in English.  It
Sam just implies that the second condition is not generally what
Sam you'd expect if the first was true.

Randal Maybe in the interest of huffman encoding, we could make
Randal it even_though. :)

Or we could compromise on despite.

But (sigh) when I first looked at this proposal, I thought, Now what the 
heck is he trying to say that 'and' doesn't cover?

Is it really syntactic sugar if it's confusing at first glance?

Syntactic maple syrup?

-Melvin