On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:58:59PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 5/4/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > [<] could mean "monotonically increasing".
: Not unless we make boolean operators magic.  There are arguments for
: doing that, but I don't really want to think about how that would be
: done at the moment.  Reduce over a straight-up (or left) boolean
: operator doesn't make much sense...

It could be admitted under the rewrite rule as applied to chaining
comparison operators, such that

    if [<](1,2,3) {...}

is the same as

    if 1 < 2 < 3 {...}

Likewise, one could write [|] to mean "any" and [&] to mean "all",
but that'd be kind of silly.

On the other hand, I freely admit that those don't work under a recursive
binary view that artificially forces left-associativity.


Reply via email to