Re: a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-30 Thread Fred Heutte
I just want to say it seems appropriate that this discussion of how Perl can look like Morse Code is happening in the thread I first started, since I was active in ham radio from 1970-95 (mostly CW, or Morse Code to you non-hams). And consider it a blessing that Perl can look like Morse Code,

Re: a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-29 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 10:39:01AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: Now we just need to make ... ___ ... mean something exceptional. ___ ... ___ is valid. :) -- Michael G. Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ Perl6 Quality Assurance [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kwalitee Is

Re: a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-29 Thread John Porter
Larry Wall wrote: Now we just need to make ... ___ ... mean something exceptional. Ref: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg02873.html ) -- John Porter

Re: a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-28 Thread Larry Wall
Simon Cozens writes: : Hey, that would make _ _ __ legal Perl code. Abigail, Abigail! Now we just need to make ... ___ ... mean something exceptional. : (I still prefer ~, but acknowledge that this is just bikeshed painting.) Bikesheds need to be painted occasionally. Larry

Re: a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-28 Thread Damian Conway
: Hey, that would make _ _ __ legal Perl code. Abigail, Abigail! Now we just need to make ... ___ ... mean something exceptional. Just download the Bleach.pm module from the CPAN. It includes Morse.pm. Damian

Re: a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-27 Thread Damien Neil
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 04:46:48PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: And I'm tired of hearing the argument that Perl programmers can't get used to a different operator for concatenation. I know better--after all, Perl is probably what got them used to . in the first place. If you can teach dogs to

Re: a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-27 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:45:02AM -0700, Damien Neil wrote: I think many of us are resigned to losing . for concatination; I know I can live with that. I just don't want to have this result in ~, ^, or any other C-style punctuation operator getting renamed. That's my position. I'd rather

Re: a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-27 Thread David L. Nicol
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: I'd rather it be cc or _ (I didn't like the underscore at first, but it's grown on me a little) Comparing ~ and _ to available editors markup marks, _ is closer to the sideways () that an editor might use to indicate that two words should be joined together. Tilde

Re: a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-26 Thread Bart Lateur
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:19:40 GMT, Fred Heutte wrote: Yes, I know ~ is the bitwise negation operator. Have you EVER used it? Yes. A lot. But there is no conflict. ~ is currently just an unary operator, while your use would be as a binary operator (are those the correct terms?). For example, in

Re: a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-26 Thread Fred Heutte
Bart Lateur's response summarizes well what I've heard so far from responses both to the list and privately: (1) Yes, ~ *is* somewhat used in its current role as the bitwise negation (complement) operator. (2) No, that doesn't appear to overlap my proposal for its use as a successor

Re: a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-26 Thread Larry Wall
Nathan Wiger writes: : Now, it may be that all the We should use . people are just keeping : quiet, or think it's obvious why this is a benefit, but I'm unconvinced. : Again, I'm open-minded, but the only argument I've really heard is to : make Perl more Java/Python-like. This doesn't sway me at

Re: a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-26 Thread Graham Barr
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 03:35:24AM +, Fred Heutte wrote: Bart Lateur's response summarizes well what I've heard so far from responses both to the list and privately: (1) Yes, ~ *is* somewhat used in its current role as the bitwise negation (complement) operator. (2) No, that

Re: a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-26 Thread Nathan Wiger
Graham Barr wrote: You don't get it. We are not looking for a single char to replace - We WANT to use . With complete respect here, I'm still not convinced this is true. Specifically, what the value of we is. It hardly sounds like everyone's united on this point. In fact, I've counted

a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-25 Thread Fred Heutte
It seems to me that ~ relates to forces (operators, functions and methods) more than to atoms (scalars), so to speak. It's the curve of binding Perl at work here. So why not leave . alone and have ~ substitute for - $mydsn-Sql($mysqlstmt . $moresql) ; $mydsn~Sql($mysqlstmt . $moresql) ;

Re: a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-25 Thread Casey West
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 06:19:40PM +, Fred Heutte wrote: : It seems to me that ~ relates to forces (operators, functions and methods) : more than to atoms (scalars), so to speak. It's the curve of binding Perl : at work here. : : So why not leave . alone and have ~ substitute for - :

Re: a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-25 Thread Graham Barr
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 06:19:40PM +, Fred Heutte wrote: It seems to me that ~ relates to forces (operators, functions and methods) more than to atoms (scalars), so to speak. It's the curve of binding Perl at work here. So why not leave . alone and have ~ substitute for -