Markus ha scritto:

> On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 12:43, Hal Fulton wrote:
> 
>>This is just my opinion, so don't take it the wrong way. And don't stop your
>>experimentation.  ;)
> 
> 
>      Oh, no worries.  There's no risk of that.
> 
> 
>>I believe that a language should provide "all the power you need" but "not
>>too much more than you need." This is admittedly highly subjective.
> 
> 
>      The problem is, what if I want more power than you do?  And what if
> Angilena Mathmatica or Bob Business wants something that neither of us
> do?  I'd say that the language should provide enough flexibility for
> everyone, so long as it's not required that anyone use it who doesn't
> want it.

the problem I can see is: +,*,- have a ,more or less obvious semantic. 
You can expect them to be implemented to be similar things in diffenret 
domains.
The problem is: given that -> is not a standard operator, what could 
happen if Angelina and Joe Automator implement themselve it for 
different things?

I mean, one could intend it as  a function definition operator, while 
the other could use it to indicate movements of an hunter in the usual 
wumpus labyrinth. then their two library would be completely incompatible.

Maybe we could be happy if standard operators such as
+= or != could be overriden, and everything could become prefix.
  I guess this could be enough power.