Instead of
multi sub *infix:~(ArabicStr $s1, ArabicStr $s2) {...}
multi sub *infix:~(Str $s1, ArabicStr $s2) {...}
multi sub *infix:~(ArabicStr $s1, Str $s2) {...}
could you say
multi sub *infix:~(ArabicStr $s1, ArabicStr | Str $s2) | (Str
$s1, ArabicStr $s2) {...}
or something
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
Junctions are frightfully more abstract than that. They only take on
meaning when you evaluate them in boolean context. Before that, they
represent only a potential to become a boolean test.
This is very well spoken err written---except that I would use
beautifully
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Instead of
multi sub *infix:~(ArabicStr $s1, ArabicStr $s2) {...}
multi sub *infix:~(Str $s1, ArabicStr $s2) {...}
multi sub *infix:~(ArabicStr $s1, Str $s2) {...}
as S13 say
multi sub infix:+ (Us $us, Them $them) is commutative {
myadd($us,$them) }
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Instead of
multi sub *infix:~(ArabicStr $s1, ArabicStr $s2) {...}
multi sub *infix:~(Str $s1, ArabicStr $s2) {...}
multi sub *infix:~(ArabicStr $s1, Str $s2) {...}
as S13 say
multi sub infix:+ (Us $us, Them $them) is
On 1/2/06, TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
The point was that you should know when you're passing a named
argument, always. Objects that behave specially when passed to a
function prevent the ability to abstract uniformly using functions.[1]
...
[1] This is one
On 1/4/06, Rob Kinyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
The point was that you should know when you're passing a named
argument, always. Objects that behave specially when passed to a
function prevent the ability to abstract uniformly using functions.[1]
...
[1] This is one
HaloO,
Rob Kinyon wrote:
I'm confused at the confusion. To me, junctions are just magical
values, not magical scalars. In theory, one should be able to create
junctions of arrays, hashes, or subs just as easily.
my @junc = any( @a, @b, @c );
my %junc = any( %a, %b, %c );
Hmm, and
