In general I like where this is going but need a little hand holding
here- I'm not an expert on junctions or anything perl6-
> So I'm going to go on to propose that we create a fifth class of
> Junction: the "transjunction", with corresponding keyword C<every>.
It seems that by these definitions "every" isn't quite a junction-
> every(@list) <comparision-op> <value>
>to mean ...
> grep * <comparision-op> <value>, @list;
You'll need to specify "but not necessarily in the same order" if you
want junctive autothreading to work on "every" as it does with other
junctions. In which case it should probably be returning a junction
and not an ordered list.
Which reminds me, .eigenvalues strictly speaking is a set and not a
list. !eigenstates can be whatever the internal representation is...
not that I've checked the synopsis on that...
And while I like the cleanliness of the "every" expressions I'm still
having trouble seeing why "every" should behave differently from
"any", "all". Maybe "every" isn't a junction? Maybe junctions in
general need to behave a little differently when being compared
against then they do now, so the need for "every" goes away?