Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 09 Oct 2001 11:22:02 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>
> >Does the change from ?: to ??:: mean that we can have '?' as a valid
> >character in an identifier?
>
> I'm sure it won't be. The reasoning for replacing "?" with "??" is that
> "?" is worth too much as a single character symbol, to sacrifice it on
> such a rather lowly used operator. And now you want to reclaim it... for
> no operator at all? That, I'm sure, is going into the entirely wrong
> direction.
I'm not sure I'm sacrificing it. Admittedly, if this is allowed it
means you have to disambiguate the ? operator (which isn't actually
mentioned in the operator apocalypse I note) with a space
occasionally, but that's no great hardship. (cf _, eq, cmp)
> As in Lisp, you can use "p".
>
> sub is_visiblep { ... }
Yeah, right. That 'p' convention didn't even make sense when I was
learning lisp in the first place. C<sub visible?> actually makes sense
to people who don't know the lisp convention, and they've got to be in
the majority.
--
Piers
