Re: Generalizing ?? !! Charles Bailey wrote: > I'm concerned that the relevant precedent isn't just Perl5.  The ?: spelling > of the ternary is pretty deeply embedded in programming languages -- I'm > hard pressed to think of a widely used language in the past 10-15 years that > spells it differently (though that may say more about my experience than the > universe of "widely used" languages).  Put more practically, I don't think > the issue is just moving people forward from Perl5; we need to think about > whether it'll help or hinder users moving back and forth among several > languages, or bringing familiarity with other languages to the process of > learning Perl6. In short, is C<:: ??> going to be Perl 6's C<< -> >>? Again, this presupposes that C<: ?> is a feasible option (i.e., doesn't conflict with anything important) now that we have whitespace disambiguation.  If it isn't, then this whole line of reasoning is moot.  So: Is it feasible? --  Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang