Austin Hastings wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
> > On the other hand, it's possible that we should extend the visual
> > metaphor of �� and apply it asymmetrically when one of the arguments
> > is expected to be scalar. That would mean that your last three lines
> > would be written:
> >
> > (1,2,3) �+� (4,5,6)
> > $a �+� $b
> > $x +� $y
> >
> > What's more, a unary vector op would then just be
> >
> > -� @bar
> >
> > This also lets us use an array in its scalar sense for its length:
> >
> > @foo �+ @bar
>
> If only from a syntax-highlighting point of view, this is a horrible
> proposal. Make it die.
How is this any worse than syntax-highlighting a full �� construct?
Incidently, it might make matters easier if you forbid whitespace between
the �� operator modifier and its operator. Indeed, you might want to look
into including a trait for operator declarations which allows you to
modify the importance of whitespace - something like:
sub circumfix:�� (&o is infix) is whitespace(forbidden) {...}
sub prefix:� (&o is postfix|infix) is whitespace(forbidden) {...}
sub postfix:� (&o is prefix|infix) is whitespace(forbidden) {...}
=====
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
