Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-04 6:10 (-0700):
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 08:59:04AM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
> : This may be a naive question, but what's wrong with just having a
> : keyword called reduce()? Why do we need an operator for everything?
> Because it's an operator/macro in any event, with weird unary or
> listop parsing:
> reduce(+) @array
That's ugly, but there's also the map-ish form, and I'd like that to
still be available.
reduce { $^a + $^b }, @array;
reduce &infix:<+>, @array;
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
