On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Joseph Brenner wrote:
> Patrick R. Michaud <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The "any" function is just like any other function taking an arbitrary list
> > of arguments (including user-defined functions). As such it parses with
> > lower precedence than comparison operators -- so "eq" binds more tightly
> > than "any".
>
> Thanks, makes sense.
>
> > I'm not exactly sure what sort of warning should go here, or how it'd be
> > detected.
>
> Yes, exactly. From one point of view it's working as designed-- to me
> it felt pretty weird, though.
>
> Speculating wildly: could there be a need for a different type of
> function with different precedence?
>
You can achieve this today by redefining &any to be a prefix operator
and provide it with tight enough precedence. In this example, I pick
infix multiplication as the argument stopper, which is in particular
tighter than the relevant eq operator; your mileage may vary:
sub old-any (|c) { CORE::{'&any'}.(|c) }
multi prefix:<any> (|c) is tighter(&infix:<*>) {
old-any |c
}
say so any <a b c> eq any <c d>; # True (fixed)
say so old-any(<a b c>) eq old-any(<c d>); # True
say so old-any <a b c> eq old-any <c d>; # False
Now I'd be interested to see how someone would turn this into a
frugal-sub declarator or an `is frugal` trait.
Regards,
Tobias
--
"There's an old saying: Don't change anything... ever!" -- Mr. Monk
