On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 12:20:02PM +0000, Smylers wrote:
> cdumont writes:
> > I don't really think using the column in a ternary means that you
> > cannot use it else where.
> We started off with that, and it was changed specifically because it was
> causing a problem; I can't remember exactly what, but it's in this
> list's archives somewhere.
> Remember that whatever expression you want to use the colon for is going
> to be valid between the ? and : parts of the ? ... : operator, and so
> you need to avoid the colon being confused for the : which marks the end
> of this part of the ? ... : operator.

...and it's not just the colon, but the ? also has the potential to be
confusing here, because there's a prefix:<?> operator that is used to
coerce into boolean context.

Which indirectly gets around to an even stronger reason for using
C<?? !!> over C<? :> -- Perl 6 aims for a consistency in the
use of the ? and ! characters to mean "boolean true" and "boolean
not true".  This is true not only for the operators, but also in
regular expressions and other places.  So, having something like

    $foo =  $cond ?? ...if_true... !! ...if_not_true... ;

achieves several important goals:
  - it frees up the ? and : characters for other purposes
  - it reinforces the convention of ? as "if true" and ! as "if false"
  - it is more visually distinctive, so that the ternary tokens don't
    get lost in the middle of other operands and expressions
  - it simplifies parsing (both compiler and human) and improves
    error reporting

In my case, I've found the switch to ?? !! to be fairly
natural, and that I don't use it often enough to worry about
the extra characters.

> > As for the functions, i didn't see that much for hashes and arrays
> > which was a big disappointment.
> What were you hoping for?  Many things which were functions in Perl 5
> are now also available as methods in Perl 6.  If you post here with what
> you're disappointed to be missing, it may be that somebody can reply
> pointing out where the equivalent functionality is!

As noted at the beginning of Synopsis 1:

    Another assumption has been that if we don't talk about 
    something in these Synopses, it's the same as it is in Perl 5.


Reply via email to