--YkJPYEFdoxh/AXLE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 05:18:24AM +0900, Sebastian Hungerecker wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> > I'm leaning more toward = being used for both, and some other signifier
> > determining how the expression should be evaluated.
> 
> What should that other signifier be? I guess you could say that assignment has 
> no value (instead of returning the assigned value as it usually does) and 
> then interpret = as checking for equality when it's used in a place where a 
> (boolean) value is expected and as assignment when it's not. But I imagine 
> that could become confusing as well. Also it'd make it impossible to do 
> things like "while item = get_item" (which may or may not be a good thing 
> depending on your point of view, of course).

I'm not sure about the specifics of how I'd want to set up the syntax,
but I don't see why the potential problems you bring up can't be worked
around.  Hell, just adding "let" to the assignment operation could clear
that up -- though I'm not convinced that's the best way to do it, because
I'm not sure how much I care about the addition of an additional
syntactic element there.

    while let item = get_item

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Quoth Nat Torkington, on Perl internals: ". . . an interconnected mass
of livers and pancreas and lungs and little sharp pointy things and the
occasional exploding kidney."

--YkJPYEFdoxh/AXLE
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmlzhgACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKXQzwCdHFvLBvdwyU+BXF6SoqxTnnQX
f1gAn18FxbZMa8HaMc2eCOe8hu3bJlwR
EH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--YkJPYEFdoxh/AXLE--