Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-04  6:10 (-0700):
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 08:59:04AM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
> : This may be a naive question, but what's wrong with just having a
> : keyword called reduce()? Why do we need an operator for everything?
> Because it's an operator/macro in any event, with weird unary or
> listop parsing:
>     reduce(+) @array

That's ugly, but there's also the map-ish form, and I'd like that to
still be available.

    reduce { $^a + $^b }, @array;
    reduce &infix:<+>,    @array;


Reply via email to