develooper Front page | perl.perl6.language | Postings from March 2005

Re: s/true/better name/

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Rod Adams
March 15, 2005 10:40
Re: s/true/better name/
Message ID:
Larry Wall wrote:

>On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:13:52PM +0200, Yuval Kogman wrote:
>: On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:51:57 +0100, Juerd wrote:
>: > Autrijus suggested "indeed" or "id", of which I like "indeed" better,
>: > because I'd like to continue using "id" with databases.
>: whether?
>That's an interesting possibility, though I think about half the people
>would misspell it.  Maybe that's a feature.  It works well for:
>    $yesno = whether any(@foo) == @any(@bar);
>I don't mind it being long.
>I should point out I'm rethinking the idea of whether or not whether and
>not should be list operators.  "not @foo" would have unexpected consequences
>if it forces list context, so I think we better let people hyper those
>manually if needed.  I think we can leave "not" at the precedence of
>list operators without actually making it one, but maybe we should make
>a separate precedence level for it to keep list op precedence "pure".
I don't see the point of making them list ops. Leaving them at that 
precedence level makes sense, but leave them unary. For a list version, 
you can write C<?any(...)> or C<?none(...)> to do the same thing.

-- Rod Adams

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About