Re: Re^3: Why not support this syntax?

[clemburg]

Good idea, and we can even cover that one ourselves, too:

sub is_ordered_according_to {
    my ($binary_predicate, @values) = @_;
    if (@values < 3) {
        return $binary_predicate->(@values);
    } else {
        return $binary_predicate->($values[0], $values[1])
            && is_ordered_according_to($binary_predicate, 
                                       @values[1..$#values]);
    }
}

sub less_than {
    return shift() < shift();
}

print is_ordered_according_to(\&less_than, 
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) ? "yes" : "no", "\n" ;
print is_ordered_according_to(\&less_than, 
3, 2, 1, 4, 5, 6) ? "yes" : "no", "\n" ;
print is_ordered_according_to(\&less_than, 
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 5) ? "yes" : "no", "\n" ;

Christian Lemburg
Brainbench MVP for Perl
http://www.brainbench.com

[MeowChow]

Nice, but try this:

$val = $min <= $x < $y <= $z <= $max

IMO, A syntactic solution would be both cleaner and faster.

   MeowChow                                   
               s aamecha.s a..a\u$&owag.print

[scott]

Cool. If you don't mind, I'll just add this to my personal collection of bits o'code.

Good idea, and we can even cover that one ourselves, too

But we can cover *anything* ourselves ... with enough effort.

From another of your posts on the same topic:

Perl is a language for getting your job done - right. After writing this little subroutine, the job is done. Why wait for other people to do jobs for you that you can do for yourself in 30 seconds.

I don't think anyone said anything about *waiting*.

Making Perl6 will require a great deal of effort, it's going to happen regardless of whether or not this particular syntax is included, and the process of deciding what the syntax will be has been deliberately opened to public debate.

So why not let everyone know on what we think said effort should be spent constructing?

Philosophically yours,

Scott