retard wrote:
Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:43:26 +0800, KennyTM~ wrote:
On Jun 8, 10 15:55, retard wrote:
Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:16:15 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Nick Sabalausky"<a...@a.a> wrote in message
news:hujd9m$11o...@digitalmars.com...
"Nick Sabalausky"<a...@a.a> wrote in message
news:hujd6a$11e...@digitalmars.com...
Assuming, of course, a 'max' that works on a range, which would be
easy enough to do. Probably something like:
ElementType!T max(T range) // Corrected
{
return reduce!ordinaryMax(range);
// Or
return reduce!"a>b?a:b"(range);
}
Or:
alias reduce!"a>b?a:b" max;
God, I love D :)
max = reduce>
FSM, I love<funfunfun>. :)
If there's any language allowing defining a max like this, it has
implemented reduce (a.k.a. fold) wrongly.
Right, I should not have used the symbol >, but last post was right after
I woke up. Let's say it depends on the definition of > :)
Hey retard, you are a legend.
