Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from March 2005
Re: s/true/better name/
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
John Macdonald
Date:
March 16, 2005 13:43
Subject:
Re: s/true/better name/
Message ID:
200503161748.16116.john@perlwolf.com
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 15:40, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:09:40PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> > So I'm thinking we'll just go back to "true", both for that reason,
> > and because it does syntactically block the naughty meaning of true as
> > a term (as long as we don't default true() to $_), as Luke reminded us.
>
> But "true()" reads weird, and it does not read like an unary (or list)
> operator at all to me. As the bikeshedding is still going on, may I
> suggest "aye()"? It is the same length as "not()", both are adverbs,
> and is rare enough to not conflict with user-defined subs.
A shotgun brainstorming of possible operator names:
determine
ponder
query
consider
examine
veracity
inquire
bool
boolean
bin
binary
propriety
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next