Damian Conway wrote:
uhm... okay. I can see the utility in having something like that around. But I think it's the kind of thing someone has to ask for, and that it likely shouldn't carry the name 'uniq'.
BTW, I am *sorely* tempted to suggest the following implementation instead:
<snip> which would produce:
uniq <a b a a c d>; # <a b c d>
uniq { lc } <a b C A a c d>; # 'a'|'A', 'b', 'C'|'c', 'd'
uniq { abs $^value } 42, 23, -23, 23, 42; # 42, 23|-23
But I'd want to think through the ramifications a little more carefully before actually advocating something that correct. ;-)
-- Rod Adams
