http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=405819


in reply to Re: Why Perl Is Not My Favourite Functional Programming Language
in thread A mini-language for sequences (part 1)

Some slight tweaking is in order. The backslashes are not needed, since &foo is already a reference in scalar context. You don't need the dot to dereference the routine value either, though it doesn't hurt anything. You don't need the last $ if you bind to &plus_op_subref instead. Also, one thing you couldn't know, since I just changed it, is that all operator names now use a variant of hash subscript syntax, so the name of the builtin addition operator is any of:
infix:+ infix:<<+>> infix:{'+'}
So I'd currently write your code as:
my &plus_op_subref = &infix:+; my &not_op_subref = &prefix:!; say plus_op_subref(3, 2); # 5
See http://www.wall.org/~larry/syn for preprints of the most recent Synopses. And http://www.wall.org/~larry/apo has Apocalypses annotated with "Update" sections.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Why Perl Is Not My Favourite Functional Programming Language
by iblech (Friar) on Nov 07, 2004 at 11:31 UTC

    Just read the message on p6l :)

    Another idea, I think it'd be most efficient if we'd bind &plus_op_subref to &infix:+ at compile-time:

    my &plus_op_subref ::= &infix:+; my &not_op_subref ::= &prefix:!; say plus_op_subref(3, 2); # 5

    Discussing about Perl 6 is fun :)