Peter Haworth writes:
>
> @a ^[alpha_op] +3
>
> You can parse this in two ways:
> * "array a", "hyperop alpha_op", "unary plus", "literal 3"
> * "array a", "binary xor", "call alpha_op and put result in arrayref",
>"binary plus", "literal 3"
>
I think this was already discusse d
[Apologies for late reply, but it takes a long time to read this many
messages]
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:37:09 -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
1) Need a definitive syntax for hypers,
> ^[op] and «op»
> have been most seriously proposed -- something that
> keeps a bracketed syntax, but
Michael Lazzaro writes:
> OK, by my count -- after editing to reflect Larry's notes -- only a few
> issues remain before the ops list can be completed.
>
>
>
> 1) Need a definitive syntax for hypers,
> ^[op] and «op»
> have been most seriously proposed -- something that k
Larry Wall writes:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : %a ^[op]= @b # hash v array
> : @a ^[op]= %b # array v hash
>
> What would those mean? Are you thinking only of hashes with numeric keys?
>
> Larry
>
>
>
no but hash can have property that tells how to
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: %a ^[op]= @b # hash v array
: @a ^[op]= %b # array v hash
What would those mean? Are you thinking only of hashes with numeric keys?
Larry
Michael Lazzaro writes:
> OK, by my count -- after editing to reflect Larry's notes -- only a few
> issues remain before the ops list can be completed.
>
>
>
> 1) Need a definitive syntax for hypers,
> ^[op] and «op»
> have been most seriously proposed -- something that k
--
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:37:09
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>OK, by my count -- after editing to reflect Larry's notes -- only a few
>issues remain before the ops list can be completed.
>
>
>
>1) Need a definitive syntax for hypers,
> ^[op] and +op;
>have been most seriously propose
OK, by my count -- after editing to reflect Larry's notes -- only a few
issues remain before the ops list can be completed.
1) Need a definitive syntax for hypers,
^[op] and «op»
have been most seriously proposed -- something that keeps a
bracketed syntax, but solves ambiguity i
