Are these equivalent? (Assuming reduce isn't going away)

Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-04  5:36 (-0700):
>     $sum = \\+ @array;
>     $fact = \\* 1..$num;

    $sum  = reduce &infix:<+>, @arrayd;
    $fact = reduce &infix:<*>, 1..$num;

>     $firsttrue = \\|| @args;
>     $firstdef = \\// @args;
>     @sumrows := \\+ @rows;

    $firsttrue = reduce &infix:<||>, @args;
    $firstdef  = reduce &infix:<//>, @args;
    @sumrows  := map { reduce &infix:<+>, @$_ }, @rows;

> Now here's the interesting part.  The same critera apply to extra
> lists added with <== or ==>.  In other words, a function may be be
> declared to recognize multiple input pipes as separate lists just
> like a subscript recognizes multiple dimensions of slices.  But the
> default is to flatten all input pipes into a single input stream.

Hm, if ==> and <== are made special syntax, maybe this would be
possible?

    @foo ==> zip <== @bar

>     $sum = (R)+ @array;

I like that.


Juerd
-- 
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html 
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html

Reply via email to