On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 07:50:55AM -0700, Carl Mäsak via RT wrote: > > b) &infix:<...> should assume .succ if the final value is a Code > object, > > This alternative makes sense to me. It's similar to how &infix:<...> > assumes .succ in this case: '"perl" ... *'
Similar, yes, but also a little "off". In the case of "perl" ... * , &infix:<...> assumes .succ because the * transforms to Inf, and "perl" cmp Inf is Order::Increase. So, it's a special case like *, but it's a separate special case. I'm wondering if Code objects just shouldn't participate in &infix:<cmp> somehow. And also if there ought to be something akin to an Order::None somewhere. Either of these might help to more cleanly get the &infix:<...> semantics right in this case, as well as potentially solve a lot of other cmp-related oddities. Pm
