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