> I would suggest calling .any on the list, that gives you just the tight
> preference you want; even if there were no .any method available on the
> object you've got, or you want a different function, you can <a b c>.&mysub
That's a good thought. The code wouldn't read as nicely, though (the
syntax is less like English):
say so <a b c>.any eq <c d>.any;
My solution would be just to always use parens on the junction functions:
say so any(<a b c>) eq any(<c d>);
On 6/24/20, Timo Paulssen <t...@wakelift.de> wrote:
> On 22/06/2020 20:12, Joseph Brenner wrote:
>> > Speculating wildly: could there be a need for a different type of >
> function with different precedence?
> I would suggest calling .any on the list, that gives you just the tight
> preference you want; even if there were no .any method available on the
> object you've got, or you want a different function, you can <a b c>.&mysub
>
> LMKWYT
> - Timo
>
>
>
