On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:58:59PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote: : On 5/4/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: : > [<] could mean "monotonically increasing". : : Not unless we make boolean operators magic. There are arguments for : doing that, but I don't really want to think about how that would be : done at the moment. Reduce over a straight-up (or left) boolean : operator doesn't make much sense...
It could be admitted under the rewrite rule as applied to chaining comparison operators, such that if [<](1,2,3) {...} is the same as if 1 < 2 < 3 {...} Likewise, one could write [|] to mean "any" and [&] to mean "all", but that'd be kind of silly. On the other hand, I freely admit that those don't work under a recursive binary view that artificially forces left-associativity. Larry