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
