BEGIN trait_mod:<is>(&any, :tighter(&infix:<*>)); comes to mind, but that doesn't seem to do the trick.
> On 22 Jun 2020, at 21:11, Tobias Boege <t...@taboege.de> wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Joseph Brenner wrote: >> Patrick R. Michaud <pmich...@pobox.com> 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