Mr. Nobody said: > --- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> So, to bring this thread back on track *again*, I hopefully offer this >> summary. >> >> >> 1) Damian's idea of using ~> and <~ as L2R and R2L is well-liked. Thus: >> >> @out = grep { ... } map { ... } @in; # (1) (perl5) >> >> becomes any of the following: >> >> @out = grep { ... } <~ map { ... } <~ @in; # (2) (perl6) >> >> @out <~ grep { ... } <~ map { ... } <~ @in; # (3) >> >> @in ~> map { ... } ~> grep { ... } ~> @out; # (4) >> >> My impression was that this was _instead_ of (1), eliminating the >> specialized syntax of the map, grep, etc. functions in favor of this >> more generic piping syntax, but that wasn't explicitly stated. Is that >> correct?
I hope not. Don't forget that despite the caveats, the "Perl should stay Perl" RFC was actually accepted. OK, I could be convinced that there should be a change if it would simplify and generalise, but I see no point in change for its own sake. > I have to wonder how many people actually like this syntax, and how many > only say they do because it's Damian Conway who proposed it. I trust that we are all sufficiently grown up and devoid of marketing hype that we can judge suggestions on their own merit. -- Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pjcj.net