in reply to Thoughts on some new operators for perl (6 or 7)

You shouldn't necessarily assume you have to loop at all. Perl 6 also lets you take a junctional approach: 
    $lowest  = one(@list_of_int) <= all(@list_of_int);
    $highest = one(@list_of_int) >= all(@list_of_int);
    $lowest  = one(@list_of_int) le all(@list_of_string);
    $highest = one(@list_of_int) ge all(@list_of_string);

[download]
Or something like that...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Thoughts on some new operators for perl (6 or 7)
by lidden (Curate) on Mar 22, 2008 at 00:16 UTC
    one(@list_of_int) <= all(@list_of_int)

    Shouldn't that be true if the lowest value is a dupe and false if not?

    Now four years later I think what the op wanted is best written:

    my $lowest = [min] @list_of_int;

    [download]
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
      Yes, though we didn't have reduce operators back then, nor did we have infix min and max that would allow you to say 
      for @list {
    $min min= $_;
    $max max= $_;
}

      [download]
      But [minmax] @list might be what the OP really wants.

      And to answer tye's question, min and max are multiply dispatched, so it depends on the types of each pair of arguments. Non-comparable values probably produce an error, but any ordered type will work if used consistently.

      (And my grandparent response was probably bogus, since junctions are really only for doing boolean logic, not pulling out actual values. But given that I was very sick four years ago, I'm not surprised...)

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

      I assume that one() isn't the same as any().

      So is "min" numeric or alpha?

      - tye        

[reply]

In Section Meditations