On 5/6/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To try and make it easier to pick (ASCII) operators, a simple table of
> what's given away and what's available. Please let me know if there are
> any mistakes.

Thanks!  Here's an annotated bit for each ?.

> If anyone knows how to fill in the "???" parts, be my guest!
>     !        not               none() ???

Nope.  In order to create those, you just need to say none().  There
is no operator form.

>     !!       AVAILABLE?        AVAILABLE?

Given prefix:<?>, I suppose that is available.

>     @@       AVAILABLE?        AVAILABLE


>     $$       AVAILABLE?        AVAILABLE

Nope.  Not in term position.  I hardly think it would be a good idea
to make an operator out of it (or even a single $), however.

>     %        hash              mod
>     %%       AVAILABLE?        AVAILABLE?


>     \\       AVAILABLE?        AVAILABLE

Uh huh.

>     ==       AVAILABLE?        num eq

Fortunately yes.  Let's keep it that way.

>     -->      AVAILABLE         AVAILABLE?

I suppose it is.  That would destroy Damian's favorite little idiom:

    while ($x --> 0) {...}

But I don't think that's a huge loss. :-)

>     <->      don't touch it, I'm going to use this for -> is rw :)

In operator position.   In term position it is a single-quoted -.

>     ??       AVAILABLE?        ternary


>     ::       namespace         ternary

That's "class sigil" in term position.  Separating namespaces never
have preceding whitespace, so they're always part of some larger term.

>     \w+      infix only
>     x        passive repeat
>     xx       passive repeat
>     X        active repeat ???
>     XX       active repeat ???

Those two haven't been blessed, and, though I don't have the message,
I think I remember Larry being a little hesitant about adding those.

>     Y        zip()
>     many still available!
> With double characters (like ~~), "AVAILABLE?" means that if we start
> using that, stacking of the single thing will start requiring
> whitespace, as with = and == in $foo = =$fh)
> "ws?" means that whitespace may be needed for disambiguation.
> I left out colon and semicolon because they're too special to fit in a
> term|op table. I think it's more than safe to assume they're taken :)

Um, yes.

> <> is more flexible than {}, [] and () because it's a quoting operator
> (the inside is not an expression).
> I think it's best to ignore entirely the fact that we can use more
> triple character proper operators :)

Why the %!@ would you ignore that!? :-)


Reply via email to