At 12:04 PM 8/9/00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>At 04:58 AM 8/10/00 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
>> > No. I don't want to see && or || and not know whether it
>> short-circuits
>> > without looking in the class interface. My brain is conditioned
>> through
>> > years of C and Perl to expect that they always short-circuit. This
>> is too
>> > venerable a semantic to change. Please.
>>
>>What if I want to overload && and || so that they help built an expression
>>tree, rather than immediately evaluating?
>
>Is it worth the damage it will cause to fragile brains like mine?
"And now it's time for the head on top of your shoulders to explode"
>I have often wondered whether a language could allow user-defined
>operators. The fact that none have done it should be a clue :-)
What, like C++? ("I don't believe in it?" "What, C++? Just a conspiracy of
computer programmers?")
>I guess it's getting too incestuous with the lexer.
Nah, though it does restrict the optimizer some depending on how it overloads.
Of course, by the time Damian's done, perl won't actually *do*
anything--you'll need to fire off another window and do a "kill
-HEYYOUGETMOVING 23442" to actually make something happen...
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
