On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 11:50, Dave Whipp wrote: > You're assuming that C<either> in a ternary operator. It > could be a binary operator, defined as {eval $RHS if $LHS; return $LHS}. For > that interpretation, one might choose a different name (e.g. C<implies>). > We could actually define ?? as a binary operator in much the same way.
Yep, and since ~~ auto-topicalizes its lhs for its rhs, your binary ?? is all you need. I wish I'd seen your message before I sent my recent one, as I would have just started from there. Precedence worries me a bit, since I don't know how ~~ and ?? would fit, but it's certainly nice to have this construct use a generic Perl 6 operator like ~~ and not have to have any ternary constructs in the language. -- â 781-324-3772 â [EMAIL PROTECTED] â http://www.ajs.com/~ajs