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

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]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Thoughts on some new operators for perl (6 or 7)
by TimToady (Parson) on Mar 22, 2008 at 23:20 UTC
    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]
Re^3: Thoughts on some new operators for perl (6 or 7) (one())
by tye (Sage) on Mar 22, 2008 at 00:41 UTC

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

    So is "min" numeric or alpha?

    - tye        

[reply]

In Section Meditations