On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Joseph Brenner wrote: > Patrick R. Michaud <pmichaud@pobox.com> wrote: > > > The "any" function is just like any other function taking an arbitrary list > > of arguments (including user-defined functions). As such it parses with > > lower precedence than comparison operators -- so "eq" binds more tightly > > than "any". > > Thanks, makes sense. > > > I'm not exactly sure what sort of warning should go here, or how it'd be > > detected. > > Yes, exactly. From one point of view it's working as designed-- to me > it felt pretty weird, though. > > Speculating wildly: could there be a need for a different type of > function with different precedence? > You can achieve this today by redefining &any to be a prefix operator and provide it with tight enough precedence. In this example, I pick infix multiplication as the argument stopper, which is in particular tighter than the relevant eq operator; your mileage may vary: sub old-any (|c) { CORE::{'&any'}.(|c) } multi prefix:<any> (|c) is tighter(&infix:<*>) { old-any |c } say so any <a b c> eq any <c d>; # True (fixed) say so old-any(<a b c>) eq old-any(<c d>); # True say so old-any <a b c> eq old-any <c d>; # False Now I'd be interested to see how someone would turn this into a frugal-sub declarator or an `is frugal` trait. Regards, Tobias -- "There's an old saying: Don't change anything... ever!" -- Mr. MonkThread Previous | Thread Next