On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 02:55:10PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: Tagentially related: why doesn't simple &+ or &<+> work for what we're
: currently spelling &[+] (and which is more specifically spelled
: &infix:<+>)?

Oh, and why not &<+>?  Mainly because we have lots of infix operators
containing < and >, but none containing [ and ], so we use [...]
to disambiguate infixes already in things like [X]=.  So reusing
square brackets for &[+] and [+] is deemed to be a good thing.

But also because &<foo> would mean &($/<foo>).  [op] is a special
form, so it can get away with parsing it's innards specially,
whereas infix:<op> is not a special form, insofar as all adverbials
are parsed similarly, and infix:['op'] therefore requires quotes,
which is going the wrong direction when you're looking for a
shortcut.  People will get used to seeing [+] and thinking "infix",
whereas <+> would always be causing double-takes by its similarity
to <=> and such.


Reply via email to