Author: lwall
Date: 2009-07-21 03:03:38 +0200 (Tue, 21 Jul 2009)
New Revision: 27635
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod
Log:
[S03] rename 'nonchaining infix' to 'structural infix'
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:03 PM, pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl wrote:
Author: lwall
Date: 2009-07-21 03:03:38 +0200 (Tue, 21 Jul 2009)
New Revision: 27635
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod
Log:
[S03] rename 'nonchaining infix' to 'structural infix'
Modified:
Jon Lang wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:03 PM, pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl wrote:
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod
===
--- docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod 2009-07-20 23:56:21 UTC (rev 27634)
+++
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Darren Duncandar...@darrenduncan.net wrote:
Jon Lang wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:03 PM, pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl wrote:
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod
===
---
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 07:33:23PM -0700, Jon Lang wrote:
: A stronger argument against it would be to find comparison operators
: that exist at other precedence levels. I don't think that there are
: any. (Well, besides =, leg, and cmp.)
I think people would find it quite odd if an operator
