On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:04 AM, Michael Selik <mike@selik.org> wrote: [..]
In case I need to clarify: 1. You're duplicating current clear and more flexible syntax. 2. Your proposed operators are confusing when compared with their meanings elsewhere.
what haven't we repeated in this thread yet? Motivation was explained. About confusion probably haven't discussed : so Xor ^ works on sets, IIRC for finding union without common elements. That's one point for potential confusion - probably expect it to work with list. Sounds probable? Other operator, e.g. bitshift <<, I dont' think it has potential for confusion. @ operator - currently 'free'. But maybe there is some reserved plans for lists and these operators as well - I don't know. IIRC some time ago Steven D'Aprano proposed something with sets and some of the operators (sorry in advance if that is wrong info, but I\m almost sure there was a related mathematical discussion with sets involved).