right err, I just wanted to illustrate the idea for CONTEXT's in same way,
didn't find the right examples though...
If we have more contexts any operator/s will be interpreted in numerous
ways, so the possible combinations grow i.e. we come close the the natural
language.
On the other hand the complexity grows too, but if there is defaults ( i.e.
how people expect to work ) we can drop down the complexity.
> > > ...and have some_func know it is being called in an iterator context
> > > and be able to create it's own iterator. foldr could then be
> > > done as...
> >
> > I think may have not only list,scalar,iterator .... context. But some
way to
> > define CONTEXT itself, I don't have idea how ?
> > array context, boolean context , hash context f.e.
> >
> > @a == @b #compare all elements
>
> What happens when you want the current value of @a == @b?
>
> > %x == %c #compare all key/value pairs of the hash
> > %c = %b # copy only those key/value pair that exist in both hashes
>
> Err... changing = to have a meaning other than assignment seems to me
> to be somewhat foolhardy. *Especially* as the example you cite is
> already meaningful and useful.
