> Are there any particular other operators you're worried about?
> I think the current design does a pretty good job of factoring out the
> metaoperators so that the actual set of underlying basic operators *is*
> relatively small.  Yes, you can now say something like
>     $x = [+^=] @foo;
> but the basic operator there is just ^, with a + modifier to indicate
> numeric XOR, = to indicate an assignment operator,  to indicate
> explicit paralellism, and now [] to indicate reduction, all in a nice
> visual pill so you can think of it as a single operator when you want
> to.  But I didn't even think about adding a reduction metaoperator till
> I wanted it for something else in the design that had been bugging me
> for a long, long time.  Almost nothing in the design of Perl 6 is there
> for a single purpose.

"The basic operator is ^." ..... I've been programming for a while,
following P6 pretty heavily, and I would not have been able to parse
that out of the 6 characters.

My basic concern is that [+^=] looks like line-noise. Yes, I can
parse it out, given time and understanding of the various operators,
but that's starting to smack of golf in production code, even though
it's not.

> : What happened to the idea of having modules that define syntax? Did I
> : miss a change in focus over the past few months?
> Nope.  You can still warp syntax as much as you like.  But we'd like
> to discourage people from doing that by default merely because the
> core neglects to provide a standard default solution.
> That was the big problem with Perl 5's OO design.  It was too minimal.
> It didn't specify an obvious way to do it, so everybody rolled their own
> in an incompatable fashion.

No-one came up with an incompatible way to do CGI or to handle
filenames, yet neither is within the language. If p5p had provided a
Class::* module within the core, that would have been the standard.
Now, this wouldn't have prevented others from providing alternatives
(such as CGI::Simple for CGI), but there would have been something
people could reach for if they needed it that would be installed. (I
actually think this was a mistake p5p made.)

Operators like [] and >><< can be provided for in a standard way, yet
not be in the core language. I'm not arguing against the operator
itself - I like [] as a reduce() circumfix operator modifier and wish
I had a way of putting it into Perl5. But, I would love to see it as:

use operator::reduce;
use keyword::flarg;

That way, you have the ability to document the usage of some of the
"weirder" operators.

Here's the base concern - I program Perl for a living as a contractor.
Every site I go to, I'm told "Don't use those -weird- features". The
features they're referring to? map/grep, closures, CODErefs, symbol
table manipulation ... the standard basics.

If the feature was in a module, kinda like a source filter (but not as
sucky), then the feature is more palatable because everyone has a
chance to agree that it should be added. It's stupid, but it's easier
to get everyone to agree to add the use of a module than to use a
builtin feature. I don't understand why, but that's my experience
across 4 states. *shrugs*

*thinks for a minute*

[+^=] reminds me of a P5 regex that has a comment saying "This is
black magic. Don't touch!". --That's-- my complaint.


Reply via email to