Re: more than one modifier

Juerd writes:
> Stéphane Payrard skribis 2004-06-25 16:15 (-0400):
> > It is unpossible to stack loop modifiers without adding
> > conventions denoting the iterators.
> 
> Is it really? I've always thought this would be useful enough:
> 
>     say .{foo} for @$_ for @foo;
> 
> Although that can probably just be written as:
> 
>     say .{foo} for @<<@foo;  # Looks strange. Is this correct?

Not so sure, but maybe.  It certainly looks weird. 

I like to think of hyperoperators in terms of map.  So for some unary
operator §:

    §«@x

Is equivalent to:

    map { §$_ } @x

So it appears that:

    say .{foo} for @«@foo;

Would work, but I'd be much more comfortable with:

    say .{foo} for *«@foo;

For reasons I can't describe. :-)

Luke

• more than one modifier by Unknown Sender
• Re: more than one modifier by Stéphane Payrard
• Re: more than one modifier by Juerd
• Re: more than one modifier by Luke Palmer
• Re: more than one modifier by Juerd
• Re: more than one modifier by Dan Sugalski