On Jan 27, 2009, at 12:29 PM, Jon Lang wrote:
So "$a -<=> $b" is equivalent to "$b <=> $a", not "-($a <=> $b)". OK.
I'd suggest choosing a better character for the meta-operator (one
that conveys the meaning of reversal of order rather than opposite
value); but I don't think that there is one.
Larry Wall wrote:
> Jon Lang wrote:
> : If there are only a handful of operators to which the new
> : meta-operator can be applied, why do it as a meta-operator at all?
>
> As a metaoperator it automatically extends to user-defined comparison
> operators, but I admit that's not a strong argument.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:57:26PM -0800, Mark Lentczner wrote:
> I was looking through STD.pm at the parsing of metaops. I was exploring
> to see if the legal metaops for a given operator could be notated on the
> operator chart. What I found was some oddness...
Caveat: The actual autogenerat
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:56:16AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Arguably autogenerated operators should give way to hardwired ones,
: much like foo\w* gives way to foobar currently.
Though I should point out that this wouldn't help with -=, since it's
autogenerated either way, unless you divide the
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:59:34AM -0800, Jon Lang wrote:
: If there are only a handful of operators to which the new
: meta-operator can be applied, why do it as a meta-operator at all?
As a metaoperator it automatically extends to user-defined comparison
operators, but I admit that's not a stron
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:43 AM, wrote:
> +=head2 Reversed comparison operators
> +
> +Any infix comparison operator returning type C may be transformed
> into its reversed sense
> +by prefixing with C<->.
> +
> +-cmp
> +-leg
> +-<=>
> +
> +To avoid confusion with the C<-=> operator,
Author: lwall
Date: 2009-01-27 18:43:18 +0100 (Tue, 27 Jan 2009)
New Revision: 25060
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod
src/perl6/STD.pm
Log:
[STD] more operator hacking inspired by mtnviewmark++
[S03] added comparison-reversion metaoperator
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:52:55PM -0800, Mark Lentczner wrote:
> I'm re-working my "Periodic Table of the Operators" chart to be up-to-
> date. I did the first major pass based on S03-operators. However, the
> last few days I've been plowing through STD.pm and have discovered that
> there som
