> I would suggest calling .any on the list, that gives you just the tight preference you want; even if there were no .any method available on the object you've got, or you want a different function, you can <a b c>.&mysub That's a good thought. The code wouldn't read as nicely, though (the syntax is less like English): say so <a b c>.any eq <c d>.any; My solution would be just to always use parens on the junction functions: say so any(<a b c>) eq any(<c d>); On 6/24/20, Timo Paulssen <timo@wakelift.de> wrote: > On 22/06/2020 20:12, Joseph Brenner wrote: >> > Speculating wildly: could there be a need for a different type of > > function with different precedence? > I would suggest calling .any on the list, that gives you just the tight > preference you want; even if there were no .any method available on the > object you've got, or you want a different function, you can <a b c>.&mysub > > LMKWYT > - Timo > > >Thread Previous | Thread Next