undocumented twigs

[joemfb]

I've been reading hoon.hoon, and I've come across the following undocumented twigs:

:: | core missing:
{$gasp p/twig q/twig}                               ::  |:
{$cork p/twig q/(map term foot)}                    ::  |^
{$port p/twig q/twig}                               ::  |~
{$tray p/twig}                                      ::  |? 

:: % call missing:
{$bake p/wing q/twig r/(list (pair wing twig))}     ::  %*

:: ^ cast missing:
{$ward p/twig q/twig}                               ::  ^. 
{$zinc p/twig}                                      ::  ^&

:: = flow missing:
{$tow p/(list twig)}                                ::  =~  twig stack

:: ! wild missing:
{$twig p/twig q/twig}                               ::  !,
{$spit p/twig q/twig}                               ::  !;

[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 notifications@github.com 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.