On Thu, 31 May 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> |If we're not going to have both, I'd vote for: Change the meaning of the
> ||...| notation, fix all the old code that it breaks, and move on.
> 
> This is a price for a mistake I made.  I feel really sorry that YOU
> have to pay the price.

How about this for another approach?

  Make the <> notation the same as the || notation.
  Then update the || notation to the new meaning.

Then all existing source code can be updated with a simple "search for ||
and replace with <>" operation.

There's still the question of knowing which source code needs that update,
so how about a new keyword for version control? This way, the interpreter
can make intelligent decisions about what to do with the code.

This version information can also be extracted and used in CPAN like
archives.

-- 
  spwhite / chariot.net.au