On Fri Nov 12 07:37:03 2010, Solomon wrote: > rakudo: say [leg] <a b c> > p6eval: rakudo d85964: OUTPUT«-1» > > ...but... > > "Any infix operator (except for non-associating operators) can be > surrounded by square brackets in term position to create a list > operator that reduces using that operation..." [S03] >
<p6eval> rakudo bf472b: OUTPUT«Increase» <FROGGS> is that right? two years ago you got -1 <[Coke]> FROGGS: -1 is to Increase like 1 is to True <FROGGS> hmmm <FROGGS> so its still wrong <[Coke]> it's a builtin enum for comparisons that I think only rakudo implements yet. <FROGGS> I dont understand what I should get instead by reading https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=79116 <[Coke]> r: say +Increase <p6eval> rakudo bf472b: OUTPUT«-1» <[Coke]> that ticket was opened by colomon; have him tell you the expected output. <[Coke]> (or, better, write a test) <[Coke]> n: say [leg] <a b c> <p6eval> niecza v22-33-gda13155: OUTPUT«===SORRY!===Cannot reduce with leg because structural infix operators are diffy and not chaining [...] <[Coke]> r: say [leg] <a q e> <p6eval> rakudo bf472b: OUTPUT«Increase» <masak> oh! maybe leg is non-associating. <masak> that might be what the ticket is hinting at. <masak> it certainly doesn't say it outright. <[Coke]> I think maybe leg isn't supposed to be amenable to meta-ing in that fashion, perhaps. <[Coke]> er, what masak said. :) <[Coke]> std: say [leg] <a q e> <p6eval> std d38bbd0: OUTPUT«===SORRY!===Cannot reduce with leg because structural infix operators are diffy and not chaining [...] <[Coke]> so, I think std and n have what the ticket is looking for here. <masak> S03 agrees; infix:<leg> is non-associating. <masak> [Coke]: *nod* * masak adds this to the ticket
