Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions from set theory to manipulate arrays

[Tom Christiansen]

>> At what point do you feel a new operator is not justified? Why do
>> we need grep/map, just use for? Why have <=>, cmp, just use ?:
>> 
>> So what if the man wants
>> 
>>         @foo = @bar union @baz;
>>         @foo = @bar intersetcion @baz;
>> 
>> This is a lot more of a direct map than the twiddling with hashes.
>> 
>> How are you drawing the line. Where does giving the user more power
>> than a turing machine stop.
>> 
>> <chaim>

>Yes Baby !

>This sound good for me !

>I'm completly ok with this new syntax, it is much better than a function

General cases should be preferred over special ones.

We've never had named aggregate functions in Perl before that work
like infix operators.  What is the general proposal out of which this
would intuitively decend?

--tom