undocumented twigs about urbit.org

[joemfb]

In urbit/docs#55, it was said that these twigs are deprecated. Is that true of all 10? Will they be removed from the language once Arvo has been refactored?

[philipcmonk]

I don't think they're all deprecated. In particular, =~ needs to stay, I don't know what would replace ^., and I occasionally find |^ useful.

[cgyarvin]

=~ should be implied at the top level of any parse. It already is in ford.

.^ is obviously just my omission.

|^ is marginal -- opinions may vary...

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 23, 2016, at 6:22 PM, Philip Monk [email protected] wrote:

I don't think they're all deprecated. In particular, =~ needs to stay, I don't know what would replace ^., and I occasionally find |^ useful.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[hoclun-rigsep]

Is |^ the wet version of |_ ?

[cgyarvin]

No, |^ is a |_ crossed with a |-. I'd plotted to get rid of it but was foiled by popular demand...

…

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 3, 2016, at 2:38 PM, hoclun-rigsep ***@***.***> wrote: Is |^ the wet version of |_ ? — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[hoclun-rigsep]

Ok.

What did you mean by:

=~ should be implied at the top level of any parse. It already is in ford.

[cgyarvin]

You should be able to write a file that's not one twig, but a list of twigs implicitly connected by =>. Everything loaded by %ford, which is anything not a vane or hoon.hoon, already works this way.

…

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 3, 2016, at 2:44 PM, hoclun-rigsep ***@***.***> wrote: Ok. What did you mean by: =~ should be implied at the top level of any parse. It already is in ford. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[Fang-]

The ^ ket and ! zap runes mentioned here are still missing.