Jon Lang wrote:
Moritz Lenz wrote:
Please take a look at

<moritz_> rakudo: say max(1..5)
<p6eval> rakudo c05478: OUTPUT«-Inf␤»
* masak submits rakudobug for max(1..5)

The weird thing is that it is right, according to the current spec. It says

 our multi max( Ordering @by,  *...@values )
 our multi max( Ordering $by,  *...@values )

so the range 1..5 is actually bound to @by of the first candidate,
leaving *...@values empty, and the default value of -Inf for a max() with
no values seems to be quite OK.

Of course this is not what the casual reader suspects.
My proposed solution is to get rid of the sub form of max() entirely.
Any objections?

Why not just change the "by" parameter to be named instead of
positional?  Frankly, I don't understand why that isn't already the

As Jon Lang says.

Any ordered-concerning function needs to have an optional closure parameter if users are going to be able to sort values by an algorithm of their choice, and not just a single default one built-in to the type of the values being sorted.

Moreover, "by" should be a named, optional parameter.

Make @values into an ordinary Positional-doing parameter.

Hmm ... "Ordering" ... I didn't notice the existence of that type before, and will have to look it up. Just from the above context I assume it is a closure having 2 main positional parameters and resulting in an Order value.

-- Darren Duncan

Reply via email to