Re: reduced precedence

2005-05-06 Thread Juerd 
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-05-06 12:04 (-0600):
> : I propose that reduce become a metaoperator that can be applied to
> : any binary operator and turns it syntactically into a list operator.

Thanks for the quick reply.

20:14 < pmichaud> oh yes, Luke has the relevant quote
20:15 < pmichaud> listop, definitely.
20:15 < autrijus> it's done :)


Juerd
-- 
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html 
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html

Re: reduced precedence

2005-05-06 Thread Autrijus Tang 
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 12:04:16PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In #perl6, we can't decide what it should be. There are good arguments
> > for listop precedence ([+] 1..9) and for unary precedence ([EMAIL 
> > PROTECTED] <
> > $bar). My preference is listop precedence.
> 
> Good, because that's Larry's preference, too:
> 
> : I propose that reduce become a metaoperator that can be applied to
> : any binary operator and turns it syntactically into a list operator.

Okay, [+] is now a listOp in Pugs, between Y and ==>, until further
notice. :-)

Thanks,
/Autrijus/


pgpDuzqPESK19.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: reduced precedence

2005-05-06 Thread Luke Palmer 
On 5/6/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the precedence of a reduction operator?
>
> Pugs currently implements it at the symbolic unary level, like the
> filetest operators. But that's just one of many guesses.
>
> In #perl6, we can't decide what it should be. There are good arguments
> for listop precedence ([+] 1..9) and for unary precedence ([EMAIL PROTECTED] <
> $bar). My preference is listop precedence.

Good, because that's Larry's preference, too:

: I propose that reduce become a metaoperator that can be applied to
: any binary operator and turns it syntactically into a list operator.

Luke