Damian Conway writes: > Larry mused: > > > ... I don't think people would be terribly pleased when they see > > things like: > > > > @a »+<<« @b > > > [it] would certainly motivate people to move toward editors and > > terminals that can display: > > > > @a »+<<« @b > > Yes, it would be an excellent motivation in that direction. But, then, > so would *not* providing any ASCII-based alternative in the first > place.
If we go that far it will just put people off completely. Providing people with an easy upgrade path is good motivation; purposefully making life hard for un-upgraded people can be counter-productive: people can take offence at it, or dismiss Perl 6 as elitist and impractical, or ... Also I note that Luke Palmer recently wrote: > Luke Palmer writes: > > Scott Walters writes: > > > This would lend itself a P5 backport that did overload on its > > > argument, too. If it found that the thing on the right hand side > > > was also overloaded into the same class, it is could use a single > > > iterator on both sides, otherwise it would treat the 2nd argument > > > as a scalar. This would solve the "single iterator per line" > > > problem for p5 atleast. It would work correctly. Any number of > > > vectorized arrays could be floating around in an expression, each > > > interacting with each other correctly. > > > > Of course you mean "?interacting with? other correctly." :-) > > Grr! That ruined that joke! I'd better get this unicode thing figured > out before Perl 6 is released. > > »interacting with« other correctly. If Luke can't easily get it right, I'm not convinced other people will bother .. Smylers
