Re: Perl 6 - Operator renaming

Look forward to: //. Oh, man am I looking forward to that. In fact, once we can standardise our perl development on 5.10, I'm going to be taking huge advantage of that operator.

A little concerned about: ?: becoming ??::. Maybe I use this operator more than I should. But that said, it's still something that so many other languages have that it'll be difficult to make the transition.

That said, I'm sure that within the first 6 months after perl6 is "officially" available, someone will have written a filter to transpose ?: to ??:: in your code automatically. ;-)

Comment on Re: Perl 6 - Operator renaming

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Perl 6 - Operator renaming by Ovid (Cardinal) on Sep 01, 2005 at 21:33 UTC
Look forward to: //. Amen! Usually when I encounter `\|\|` in code, if it's not actually a bug, I still have to slow down long enough to verify that. Cheers, Ovid New address of my CGI Course.	[reply]
Re^2: Perl 6 - Operator renaming by ysth (Canon) on Sep 02, 2005 at 08:44 UTC
Yup. It's funny how all the counter-arguments seem to have vanished into the mist.	[reply]
Re^2: Perl 6 - Operator renaming by blazar (Canon) on Sep 02, 2005 at 12:40 UTC
That said, I'm sure that within the first 6 months after perl6 is "officially" available, someone will have written a filter to transpose ?: to ??:: in your code automatically. ;-) Except that it won't be a filter, but a grammar modification. And although some fear that much power for the inherent risks of introducing icompatible dialects, I'm looking forward what we could actually see...	[reply]
Re^2: Perl 6 - Operator renaming by Juerd (Abbot) on Sep 03, 2005 at 21:48 UTC
What is your concern about the ?? :: operator? I like the new fat forms, because they're easier to spot and are now somewhat grouped with && and \|\|. Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }	[reply]
Re^3: Perl 6 - Operator renaming by TimToady (Parson) on Sep 08, 2005 at 14:25 UTC
By the way, we just changed `??::` to `??!!` for various reasons, the most important of which is to avoid visual confusion with `::` as a name separator. But it also has a nice correspondence with the relationship of unary `?` and `!` operators. (Plus it discourages people from defining their own `!!` infix operator, which was deemed to be confusing in various ways.)	[reply] [d/l] [select]