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
Yep.
> $$ 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 $), however.
> % hash mod
> %% AVAILABLE? AVAILABLE?
Yes.
> \\ AVAILABLE? AVAILABLE
Uh huh.
> == AVAILABLE? num eq
Fortunately yes. Let's keep it that way.
> --> AVAILABLE AVAILABLE?
I suppose it is. That would destroy Damian's favorite little idiom:
while ($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
Yep.
> :: 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!? :-)
Luke
