Re: C as a "junction" operator

[Damian Conway]

Dave Whipp wrote:

Let us now imagine that C<for> is a junction operator, instead of a
looping statement. Now we could write:

   my $x = for(1,2,3);
   my $y = mangle($x);

and we can be certain that $y == (1,3,6), because a "for-junction"
will distribute that evaluations sequentially.

Yes, but will it junctify them con-, dis-, ab-, or in-junctively???

Besides, I don't think we need to sacrifice C<for> to achieve this behaviour.
If ordered junctions are a useful concept (and I can see that they might well be), we can have them like so:

my $x = any(1,2,3) but ordered;
my $y = mangle($x);

This ties in nicely with the pipeline syntax discussion, because

   for 1,2,3 ~> print;

There's still the issue of implicit serialization. Junctions...err...don't.

Damian