On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 06:45:52PM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
:
: > You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking superpositions as
: > superpositions. When thinking them as another-kind-of or/and, their
: > usefulness comes a lot clearer.
:
: > perl5: if $x > 0 && $x < 20 && $y > 0 && $y < 20 && $z > 0 && $z < 20
: > perl6: if 0 < $x & $y & $z < 20
:
: I find that really quite confusing written like that. but like this
:
: if 0 < ($x & $y & $z) < 20
:
: it makes more sense to me. What's the precedence?
The parens aren't required, but they certainly do help the readability there.
: Although as regular user of numerical bitops in C, I find it visually jarring
: that & isn't what it means in C, C++, perl and most other current languages.
That may well be part of why it's hard for us to group it visually
the other way. But I really don't think we want to require parens on:
if $x == 1 | 2 | 3 {...}
Larry
