Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2010
On 29 November 2010 10:05, Abigail <abigail@abigail.be> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 09:48:09PM +0100, Dr.Ruud wrote: >> 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. > > > Yes, that's the same feeling I have. I prefer '&&->' over '-&>'. > > I've suggested '->>', but I didn't get any support for it (otoh, noone > said he disliked it either). I dislike it, because it will be difficult to include in POD in C<< >> quotes :) (No-one commented on ~> either)Thread Previous | Thread Next