Damian Conway wrote:
> I'd be more inclined to go > the other way and say that you can transform any list infix form to > the corresponding function form: > > @a ZZ @b ZZ @c -> zip operator > ZZ(@a; @b; @c) -> zip function > > @a XX @b XX @c -> cross operator > XX(@a; @b; @c) -> cross function > > @a X*X @b X*X @c -> cross product operator > X*X(@a; @b; @c) -> cross product function > > @a MM @b MM @c -> minmax operator > MM(@a; @b; @c) -> minmax function
Can't you already do this, with square braces? @a XX @b XX @c [XX] (@a; @b; @c) etc? Or am I missing something about the reduction metaoperator?
I'm not strongly opposed to this, unless they're the *only* forms of the functions. If the very much more readable 'zip' and 'minmax' are to be replaced with 'ZZ' and 'MM', then I think that's a serious step backwards in usability.
Hear, hear. I very much prefer 'zip' and 'minmax' to 'ZZ' and 'MM'. -- Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
