We also have the ternary operator ? : ; which is often used in expressions like
That'll be ?? :: in Perl6.
?>:=
I think that is too much information to store in 4 ASCII characters. Some might argue that ? : already goes too far with information-packing. I personally learned C/C++ in a high school class (one of the very few languages I actually took a structured class for) and was never taught about the ? : operator. I never saw it until I learned Java, and even then I almost never used it until I learned Perl. It was a shortcut (and one of the things Java avoids religiously is shortcuts), and I didn't really "get it" for quite some time. Naturally, Perl religiously embraces shortcuts, but I think the operators you propose go too far.
----
I wanted to explore how Perl's closures can be manipulated, and ended up creating an object system by accident.
-- Schemer
Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated
In reply to Re: A set of new operators. In keeping with the design of Perl?
by hardburn
in thread A set of new operators. In keeping with the design of Perl?
by BrowserUk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |