Re: [pure-lang-users] Proposed syntax changes

[Albert G. <Dr....@t-...>]

Libor Spacek wrote:
> I must say << and >> are so well known that, at least in my mind, they are
> synonymous with the bit shifts.

That's true. But as Jeremy already pointed out, in a high-level language 
they're of limited usefulness (they mostly provide just a convenient 
shorthand for multiplying and dividing integers by powers of 2). And we 
already had to rename '&' and '|' as well.

> Have you considered naming the sequencing operator instead?
> Something like seq or fb (followed by) might do? 
> It seem that the special characters are a valuable 'real estate' in
> short supply.

Yes, but short identifiers are a scarce resource, too, maybe even more 
so. I wouldn't want to take something like 'fb' away from the user. 
(Once it's defined as an operator, it becomes part of the syntax and 
can't be used for any other purpose any more.)

So we're basically left with $$ and >>. Even though I proposed >> 
myself, I think I like $$ better. Unless someone finds use for a 
Joda'ish "reversed sequencing" operator <<. ;-)

Would everyone be happy with $$ ? (Or at least grudgingly put up with it?)

Albert

-- 
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email:  Dr....@t-..., ag...@mu...
WWW:    http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag