[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: unified methods
- From: "Jay Carlson" <nop@...>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:41:46 -0500
> I have to agree on the confusion arising from all the operators!
> Used so far in this thread: . : .. :: -> .> :>
> Ouch! what about ;) :-> and .-> ?? *g*
As a test of a proposed MOO type extension mechanism, we were working out
how a new boolean type would work. There were a bunch of proposed syntax
choices for true and false, but I think what was decided on was Ken Fox's
(-: true :-)
)-: false :-(
There were some holdouts for :-( false )-: of course. Sadly, it was never
implemented, even as a test. But it *was* an unambiguous parse....