Jonathan Lang wrote:
^[3]: If this were included in the core, you might even reverse things
so that ';' is defined in terms of postfix:<.> or infix:{'<=='},
depending on the context; in this case, postfix:<?> would be defined
in terms of postfix:<.>, rather than postfix:<;>. In fact, the only
thing keeping postfix:<.> from completely replacing postfix:<;> as a
statement terminator and insisting that the latter always be used as a
shortcut for feeds is the long tradition that the latter has in
programming languages - much like perl 6's infix:<.> replaces perl 5's
'->' because that's what everyone else uses.
Umm, never mind. I just realized that introducing a postfix:<.>
operator would complicate matters in unexpected ways by forcing
infix:<.> to require disambiguating whitespace, as per S02. This
would be Very Bad in several ways, e.g., an infixed dot is given as
the appropriate way to separate a postfix operator from the term in
front of it when whitespace is forbidden. Or the fact that 'foo.bar'
would no longer parse as expected. :sigh:
--
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
