Are these equivalent? (Assuming reduce isn't going away)
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-04 5:36 (-0700):
> $sum = \\+ @array;
> $fact = \\* 1..$num;
$sum = reduce &infix:<+>, @arrayd;
$fact = reduce &infix:<*>, 1..$num;
> $firsttrue = \\|| @args;
> $firstdef = \\// @args;
> @sumrows := \\+« @rows;
$firsttrue = reduce &infix:<||>, @args;
$firstdef = reduce &infix:<//>, @args;
@sumrows := map { reduce &infix:<+>, @$_ }, @rows;
> Now here's the interesting part. The same critera apply to extra
> lists added with <== or ==>. In other words, a function may be be
> declared to recognize multiple input pipes as separate lists just
> like a subscript recognizes multiple dimensions of slices. But the
> default is to flatten all input pipes into a single input stream.
Hm, if ==> and <== are made special syntax, maybe this would be
possible?
@foo ==> zip <== @bar
> $sum = (R)+ @array;
I like that.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
