On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:58:59PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 5/4/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > [<] could mean "monotonically increasing".
:
: Not unless we make boolean operators magic. There are arguments for
: doing that, but I don't really want to think about how that would be
: done at the moment. Reduce over a straight-up (or left) boolean
: operator doesn't make much sense...
It could be admitted under the rewrite rule as applied to chaining
comparison operators, such that
if [<](1,2,3) {...}
is the same as
if 1 < 2 < 3 {...}
Likewise, one could write [|] to mean "any" and [&] to mean "all",
but that'd be kind of silly.
On the other hand, I freely admit that those don't work under a recursive
binary view that artificially forces left-associativity.
Larry
