Damian Conway writes:
>
> Not equivalent at all. C<$foo~>bar> means "append $foo to the argument list
> of subroutine C<bar>". C<foo.bar> means "make C<$foo> the invocant for method
> <bar>".
>
> Curiously enough, the confusions I'm hearing over this issue are, to me, the
> strongest argument yet for using Andy's |> and <| symbols instead.
>
> Damian
>
Proposal :( but may be this is just part of the above mentioned
confusion:)
* we probably should distinguish between
+ pseudo-pipes ( I spell them as :> and <: )
+ and right- and left- assignment operators ( I
spell them ... => $var and $var <= ... ) .
these should be aware of distinction between assignment and
binding -- so probably there have to be 2 forms of each ???
* :> and <: should be thought of ( and probably actually are ) just
( special ) __commas__ in the following sense :
@a :> sort { ... } #==> sort { ... } @a:
@a :> join "..." #==> join "..." @a:
sort { ... } <: @a #==> sort { ... } @a:
join "..." <: @a #==> join "..." @a:
so it seems that ( already discussed ) redunduncy of <: can be solved
by saying that
* <: is doing to the _following_ term _the_same_thing_ ( makes it an
adverb ) as what ":" is doing to the _preceding_ term --- so <: is sort
of "prefix" form special comma : .
that means that <: is "prefix" adverbial comma - and the verb is
to be found _before_ the <: comma .
* :> is different . it makes the _preceding_ term an adverb --- but
the corresponding verb have to be searched _after_ the :> comma .
it seems that all the distinction between methods and subroutines is
now handled if methods and subroutines know how to handle adverbial
arguments. ( but this does not allow to place _usual_ arguments
before the subroutine/method -- so probably there have to be another
comma )
It seams that with this in mind and usual precedence rules we can
make multimethods enjoy the l2r notations.
( $square :> init ) :>
( $circle :> init ) :> do_something
do_something <: ($square :> init)
<: ($circle :> init)
arcadi
