There is no consistency between function names. I'd prefer "repeat" over "rpt", personally.
Let's back up a bit. Are you opening tickets for comment, to encourage me to go off and address the problem, or to get permission to change it?
You have permission to change it directly. Schwern may be more interested than myself in commenting before code gets commit. If you're encouraging me to "fix" this problem, my solution is going to be rip all of the wrappers around operators out, not because I don't want to do the work but because I think they're counter productive. If you want comment, that's easy to provide. Anyway, please do let me know how I can help here.
@jarich +1 to repeat and undoing devoweling in general.
I'm brain dumping issues that I think should be thought about (at least by me). You're welcome to respond or ignore.
Understood. Well, short of ripping them out, I support anything that seems like a clean-up on the named operators, but I'm less likely to do that myself than to do other things.
I'm also inclined to rip out (most of) the operators. I'll finish the work I'm doing right now, and then list the ones I think should go. If we generally agree, then success!
These subs should be called x and qx instead, because that's what they are called in standard Perl. Keep the other names for now, but start deprecating them: document the deprecation, then in a later release issue warnings, then later remove.
Since I never really managed to remove operators, I should actually implement these suggestions.
"backtick should probably be called qx() #16" was fixed in that ticket. jarich added repeat() in 69ef63, and the docs document repeat(), not rpt() (I can haz Unixy names?). It looks like x is also in there as an alias for repeat and is doc'd. So I'm marking this closed unless anyone sees anywhere this was missed. Thanks everyone!