Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:43:26 +0800, KennyTM~ wrote: > On Jun 8, 10 15:55, retard wrote: >> Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:16:15 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> >>> "Nick Sabalausky"<[email protected]> wrote in message >>> news:[email protected]... >>>> "Nick Sabalausky"<[email protected]> wrote in message >>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>> >>>>> Assuming, of course, a 'max' that works on a range, which would be >>>>> easy enough to do. Probably something like: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ElementType!T max(T range) // Corrected >>>> >>>>> { >>>>> return reduce!ordinaryMax(range); >>>>> // Or >>>>> return reduce!"a>b?a:b"(range); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> Or: >>> >>> alias reduce!"a>b?a:b" max; >>> >>> God, I love D :) >> >> max = reduce> >> >> FSM, I love<funfunfun>. :) > > If there's any language allowing defining a max like this, it has > implemented reduce (a.k.a. fold) wrongly.
Right, I should not have used the symbol >, but last post was right after I woke up. Let's say it depends on the definition of > :)
