Re: Re: RFC: new logical operator

2002-02-21 Thread 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> Mayb

Re: Re: RFC: new logical operator

2002-02-21 Thread 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/ }

Re: Re: RFC: new logical operator

2002-02-21 Thread 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>