Re: reduced precedence

[Luke Palmer]

On 5/6/05, Juerd <ju...@convolution.nl> 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 ([+]@array <
> $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

[Juerd]

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 ([+]@array <
$bar). My preference is listop precedence.

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

[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 :)

[Autrijus Tang]

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

Thanks,
/Autrijus/