Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2010
Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote: >Yes, I think that &&-> is a very good spelling. It seems a poor spelling to me. It is rather bulky to go between tokens with typically no whitespace around it (as "->" is usually used). The "&&" part suggests a pretty low precedence, whereas in fact it'll be in the highest-precedence group of all. The "&&" also suggests that the behaviour will be controlled by truth-value interpretation of the LHS, which is not the case. The only thing the "&&" part has going for it is that it correctly suggests the short-circuiting, but short-circuiting operators are not exclusively doubled punctuation, so there's not really a strong call for that kind of spelling for that reason. I favour "-&>". It looks, as it should, like a modified arrow. It doesn't visually break into two separate-looking operators. Its ends are suitable for it to have no surrounding whitespace, like "->". Because of the close resemblance to "->" it gives the right precedence expectation. It has no awkward truth-value connotation. -zeframThread Previous | Thread Next