> In general I like where this is going but need a little hand holding
> here- I'm not an expert on junctions or anything perl6-
>
>> So I'm going to go on to propose that we create a fifth class of
>> Junction: the "transjunction", with corresponding keyword C.
>
> It seems that by these definitio
In general I like where this is going but need a little hand holding
here- I'm not an expert on junctions or anything perl6-
> So I'm going to go on to propose that we create a fifth class of
> Junction: the "transjunction", with corresponding keyword C.
It seems that by these definitions "every"
Brandon mused:
> It occurs to me: If their purpose is that narrow, why are they wasting
> conceptual space in the core language?
Well, mainly because their purpose isn't narrow at all: it's parallelized data
comparisons (all(@values) < $threshold), and multiway comparisons
(all(@values) ~~ any(@
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/22/10 13:00 , Dave Whipp wrote:
> Damian Conway wrote:
>> I've been thinking about junctions, and I believe we may need a small
>> tweak to (at least) the jargon in one part of the specification.
>
> When this issue has been raised in the past,
