TSa wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Anyway, "function" vs "operator" is mostly a difference in terminology
I'm not sure what the defined difference between function and operator
is in Perl 6 but I make a very clear distinction. An operator is acting
an *one* type, that is &op:(::T,T-->T) while a fu
I sit corrected. Guess that's one of the places pugs is out of date.
On 4/1/08, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 05:39:36AM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Xiao Yafeng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I've read Synopsis and I
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 05:39:36AM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Xiao Yafeng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've read Synopsis and I wondered why to treat max and min as
> > operator. IMHO, view them as list functions is more reasonable. Like
> > below:
> >
> > @te
HaloO,
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Anyway, "function" vs "operator" is mostly a difference in terminology
I'm not sure what the defined difference between function and operator
is in Perl 6 but I make a very clear distinction. An operator is acting
an *one* type, that is &op:(::T,T-->T) while a functi
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perl5, all the builtin "functions" are really defiend as operators,
"defined", even. (However fiendishly.)
Anyway, "function" vs "operator" is mostly a difference in terminology
that makes no difference in practice, but I
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Xiao Yafeng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've read Synopsis and I wondered why to treat max and min as
> operator. IMHO, view them as list functions is more reasonable. Like
> below:
>
> @test.max
Which is how you would probably call it in Perl6. Or else
max(@t
