-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 2/7/06, Robin Houston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Any undef undefined match if !defined $a
> > Any Regex pattern match match if $a =~ /$b/
> > Code() Code() results are equal match if $a->() eq $b->()
> > Any Code() simple closure truth match if $b->() (ignoring $a)
> > Num numish[!] numeric equality match if $a == $b
> > Any Str string equality match if $a eq $b
> > Any Num numeric equality match if $a == $b
> >
> > which retains commutativity in all cases. Of course it's
> > different in Perl 6, because the "dotted entries" like
> > .[number] and .method need to behave non-commutatively.
> > But is it really necessary for coderefs?
>
> My interpretation (which may be totally off, as I don't have any
> confirmation that anybody else is thinking the same way I am) is that
> the synopsis is wrong, and commutivity of ~~ is a happy coincidence
> wherever it exists. The way I've been thinking about ~~ is just as
> the following object-oriented sugar:
>
> role Pattern {
> method match(Any $x) {...}
> }
> sub infix:<~~> (Any $x, Pattern $y) {
> $y.match($x);
> }
>
> And then the interpretation of ~~ is determined by its right-hand side.
>
> Luke
Also ermemebr that a very common user of ~~ is the implisit use in a when
conditional inside a given block, which is an inheirently assymeterical (thus
non-communitive) situation.
--
Mark Biggar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
