HaloO, Luke wrote: > > > ?? !! ain't bad either. > > > > It's definitely much better that sabotaging the > > (highly useful) // operator > > within (highly useful) ternaries. > > I guess the thing that I really think is nice is getting :: out of > that role and into the type-only domain.
Right. To make :: indicate type or meta was my primary concern. So I see the following situation: unwanted ?? :: ASCII replacements ?? // # two binaries ?? \\ # I would like it as chaining binary nor ?? !! # wasn't binary ! the none() constructor # and !! the binary nor---at least in Pugs? Latin1 replacements ?? ¦¦ ?? ¡¡ ?? ¿¿ @Larry's choice? -- TSa