On 6/7/05, Larry Wall <larry@wall.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:41:49PM +0000, Luke Palmer wrote: > : < and > still don't make sense as reduce operators. > > Yeah, I keep confusing them with min and max. > > : That reminds me, how are <, >, etc. defined anyway? How can we tell > : them to be list-associative with each other? > > Because they're all of that specific precedence level, which is defined > to work that way by fiat, I suspect. (Other operators have to be > explicitly declared as list associative, and even then are only list > associative with themselves, not with all other operators in their > precedence level.) I suppose it could be construed as some kind of > default property on the actual precedence level, but it's not clear > that that would be a useful generalization. Okay, I was referring more to the implementation. How do we tell apart: 3 < 4 <= 5 == 5 From 3 lt 4 >= 5 != 5 ? LukeThread Previous | Thread Next