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 n
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Jon Lang wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:03 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>> Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod
>>> ===
>>> --- docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod 2009-07-20 2
Jon Lang wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:03 PM, wrote:
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod
===
--- docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod 2009-07-20 23:56:21 UTC (rev 27634)
+++ docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod 2009-07-21
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:03 PM, 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: docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod
>
