Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2010
On 2010-11-28 20:15, Zefram wrote: > 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. My truthiness is that the '&' is about bits and the '&&' about trueness. -- RuudThread Previous | Thread Next