Dave Whipp writes: > "Damian Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > type KeyExtractor ::= Code(Any) returns Any; > > > # Modtimewise numerically ascending... > > @sorted = sort {-M} @unsorted; > > > One thing I've been trying to figure out reading this: what is the signature > of prefix:-M ?
Presumably something like: sub prefix:-M (?$file = $CALLER::_) {...} > i.e. how does it tell the outer block that it (the outer-block) needs > a parameter? Because it operates on $_. It tells it the same way: map { .name } @objects Does. Of course, this is going to be tough on the compiler, who will have to take the C<= $CALLER::_> part into account. > There seems to be some transitive magic going on here. Could similar > magic be used to have infix:<=> require two higher-order variables > (e.g. could "sort { <=> } @unsorted" be made to work?) No. Although you could do such a thing with: sort &infix:<=>, @unsorted; Luke