Author: larry
Date: Tue Feb 20 09:35:53 2007
New Revision: 13592
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
Log:
Conjecturalized the delegation-via-hash syntax for now.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
==
---
I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else.
The current Y has at least four strikes against it:
* It's an ASCII version of a cute Unicode picture, but other than that,
the picture it doesn't remind you of zip at all, especially in
the Y form.
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 12:42, Larry Wall wrote:
'Course, if someone goes ahead and adds the Y combinator, one must
naturally begin to wonder what the YY combinator would be... :-)
Obviously it generates a function so anonymous that it can't even refer to
itself. I call it the depressed
Larry Wall schrieb:
I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else.
Very probably I missed something as I'm only a distant observer of the
Perl6 development: Why not just call it zip?!
There is a function called zip, wouldn't it be possible to create an
operator with
Thomas Wittek wrote:
Larry Wall schrieb:
I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else.
Very probably I missed something as I'm only a distant observer of the
Perl6 development: Why not just call it zip?!
There is a function called zip, wouldn't it be possible to
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 12:49:20AM +0100, Thomas Wittek wrote:
: Larry Wall schrieb:
: I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else.
:
: Very probably I missed something as I'm only a distant observer of the
: Perl6 development: Why not just call it zip?!
: There
Larry Wall wrote:
Hmm, but then what corresponds to XX? I'd be more inclined to go
the other way and say that you can transform any list infix form to
the corresponding function form:
@a ZZ @b ZZ @c - zip operator
ZZ(@a; @b; @c) - zip function
@a XX @b XX @c - cross operator
On 21/02/07, Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Off-list]
Apparently not.
Just pretend I'm not here.
;-)
Damian
Damian Conway wrote:
I'd be more inclined to go
the other way and say that you can transform any list infix form to
the corresponding function form:
@a ZZ @b ZZ @c - zip operator
ZZ(@a; @b; @c) - zip function
@a XX @b XX @c - cross operator
XX(@a; @b; @c) - cross
