I discovered what appears to be a fact that logical operators like .EQV. and .NEQV. which are non-Perl can not be overloaded and that there are restrictions on what can be overloaded within Perl itself
This is basically correct, although the wording is strange. Overloading is something applied to objects, not operators; it changes how an object behaves when an operator is applied to it, without changing the default behaviour of that operator.
UPDATE: Perhaps the confusion comes from the term ‘operators’? Unlike some languages, the only kind of ‘operators’ that can be defined in Perl are prefix, and their names must be alphanumeric (or else invoked by &{...}-style trickery); there is no provision in Perl (or, rather, in the parser for Perl) for a user-defined infix or postfix operator—that's the price we pay for the syntactic flexibility that's already available.
the degeneracy of operatorsI don't know what this means.
cause certain operators to lose their magical properties (ex, x=, .=)Perhaps what you mean is that one can overload, say, x and x= separately, and that the overloaded behaviours need have nothing to do with one another? This is true, but not necessary: It's perfectly possible to overload, say, just x, and let Perl figure out for you how to perform x=.
In reply to Re^2: Hints Towards Writing a Module with New Operators
by JadeNB
in thread Hints Towards Writing a Module with New Operators
by swampyankee
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |