Luke Palmer wrote:

For something like:

    $ordered = [<] @array;

If @array is empty, is $ordered supposed to be true or false?   It
certainly shouldn't be anything but those two, because < is a boolean

I have no problem with 3-state logic systems (true, false, undef) if this is what is required to let me choose the corner-case behavior.

Damian previously wrote:
> 2+ args: interpolate specified operator
> 1 arg:   return that arg
> 0 args:  fail (thrown or unthrown exception depending on use fatal)

The 1-arg case doesn't seem to work right with the [<] operator:

  ? [<] 1
  ? [<] 0

If the [<] is taken to mean "ordered", then it doesn't seem right that these two tests would give different results. In this case, I need to special case both the 0-arg and 1-arg scenarios. We either need to hard code these special-cases into perl (belch), or we need to make it easy to code both special-cases inline in the code, or we need a better general-case rule.

One approach might be to reverse the direction of the definitions. That is, instead of defining the binary form and then autogeneralizing in terms of "join", we might define operators in terms of thier reduction behavior, and then autospecialize to the binary case. Of course, that still doesn't help for Damian's "product Vs factorial" example for the 0-arg case.

Or we take the well trodden road of ignoring mathematical correctness and simply state "this is what perl does: take it or leave it".

Reply via email to