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...) Larry