On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 04:57:30PM +0200, Thomas Sandlass wrote:
: HaloO,
: Luke wrote:
: > Okay, now why don't you tell us about this new binary :: you're proposing.
: Well, not a new one. Just plain old foo::bar::blahh and 'my ::blubb $x'
: with relaxed whitespace rules. The ternary ?? :: is a splinter in my
: mind's eye because it is not a compile time or symbol lookup construct.
: The driving idea is to let tokens always mean the same or at least very
: similar things in different contexts. And I thought that is your rating
: as well. For :: that should be 'symbol table management'. E.g. ::= fits
: that notion perfectly while the alternative separation of the ternary
: doesn't.

I think that's a powerful argument even if we don't have an infix:<::>.
Plus I hate all infix "nor" operators due to my English-speaking bias
that requires a "neither" on the front.  So let's go ahead and make
it ??!!.  (At least this week...)


Reply via email to