Me writes: > > > > > union: > > > > > intersection : > > > > > > > > %a ^is strict_keys; > > > > %b ^is no_strict_keys; > > > > in the resulting hash only ( and all ) keys of %a will be present. > > because %b *admits* unknown keys but %a does not. > > Yes, but the general case is that one wants to be > able to control nuances of (hyper)operations, and > Larry introduced adverbs for precisely that reason. > > Just because one can get away with controlling this > particular issue via noun adjectives (variable properties) > does not mean one should. (Although, conversely, just > because adverbs seem more more appropriate in this > case doesn't mean one shouldn't for some reason use > properties as you suggest.) >
there is one mor epossibility : temp sub infix:^[<op>] is force_hash_to_intersect ; ( I'm compleatly not sure about that sintax ) sinse "vectorization" of any op is orthogonal concept to details of that particular op , maybe we can controll behavior of that vectorization by ( ...? ) properties . we need it not only for hashes ; maybe somebody will wont ( 1,2 ) ^[op] ( 1, 2, 3 ) to return array of length 3 ; arcadi
