Re: Justification for the "reversed" instruction format

2016-09-06 Thread Aaron Sherman
Oh, and note that you can pass R'd reductions as if they were normal prefix ops: $ perl6 -e 'sub dueet(&op, *@list) { op @list }; say dueet &prefix:<[R-]>, 1..100' -4850 On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote: > > > $ perl6 -e 'my @numbers = 1..100; say [-] @numbers; say [R-] @n

Re: Justification for the "reversed" instruction format

2016-09-06 Thread Aaron Sherman
$ perl6 -e 'my @numbers = 1..100; say [-] @numbers; say [R-] @numbers' -5048 -4850 In general, it's kind of pointless with bare infix ops, as you can just reverse the arguments, but when reducing or the like, it becomes much more valuable. On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Parrot Raiser <1parr..

Justification for the "reversed" instruction format

2016-09-06 Thread Parrot Raiser
I've just stumbled across "reversed operators", e.g. say 4 R/ 12; # 3 in the documentation. I'm curious to know why the language includes them? I'm having trouble understanding where they would be useful.