"Markus Laire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 29 Oct 2002 at 5:45, Piers Cawley wrote:
>
>> Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
>> say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix
>> superposition ops. I'm a big fan of any/all/one/none, I just think
>> that
>>
>> one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $e, $f))
>>
>> Is a good deal more intention revealing than the superficially
>> appealing than
>>
>> ($a & $b & $c) ^ ( $d | $e | $f )
>>
>> which takes rather more decoding. And if you *do* want to use such
>> operators, surely you could just do
>>
>> use ops ':superpositions';
>>
>> in an appropriate lexical scope. Am I missing something?
>
> In this case I find the latter to be easier to decode and more
> appealing. There are less chars and paretheses are seen much more
> easily. The 'one(...)' especially seems to be superficial, as it's
> just 'this or that' operation in this case, and so single operator
> fits perfectly.
>
> Also the idea of allways using 'function' style for something so
> basic like superpositions doesn't appeal to me. Of course this might
> just be that I'm too used to use strange mathematical symbols.
> (Nobody ever understood my solutions in high-school...)
But they *aren't* 'strange mathematical symbols', they're well
understood symbols in algol style programming languages, and they mean
'bitwise logic'. I'm not agin the using the operators to mean
'superposition builder', but I do think there's a case for having to
introduce them in a lexical scope with an appropriate USE statement.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
