Re: Justification for the "reversed" instruction format
Oh, and note that you can pass R'd reductions as if they were normal prefix
ops:
$ perl6 -e 'sub dueet(, *@list) { op @list }; say dueet :<[R-]>,
1..100'
-4850
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Aaron Sherman
wrote:
>
>
> $ perl6 -e 'my @numbers = 1..100; say [-] @numbers; say [R-] @numbers'
> -5048
> -4850
>
> In general, it's kind of pointless with bare infix ops, as you can just
> reverse the arguments, but when reducing or the like, it becomes much more
> valuable.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Parrot Raiser <1parr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've just stumbled across "reversed operators", e.g. say 4 R/ 12; # 3
>> in the documentation. I'm curious to know why the language includes
>> them? I'm having trouble understanding where they would be useful.
>>
>
>
Re: Justification for the "reversed" instruction format
$ perl6 -e 'my @numbers = 1..100; say [-] @numbers; say [R-] @numbers' -5048 -4850 In general, it's kind of pointless with bare infix ops, as you can just reverse the arguments, but when reducing or the like, it becomes much more valuable. On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Parrot Raiser <1parr...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've just stumbled across "reversed operators", e.g. say 4 R/ 12; # 3 > in the documentation. I'm curious to know why the language includes > them? I'm having trouble understanding where they would be useful. >
Justification for the "reversed" instruction format
I've just stumbled across "reversed operators", e.g. say 4 R/ 12; # 3 in the documentation. I'm curious to know why the language includes them? I'm having trouble understanding where they would be useful.
