Re: Justification for the "reversed" instruction format

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:23 AM Aaron Sherman [email protected]
<http://mailto:[email protected]> wrote:

I don't know Haskell, but isn't flip just:
>
> sub flip(&f) { -> $b, $a, |c { f($a, $b, |c) } }
>
> And then:
>
> perl6 -e 'sub flip(&f) { -> $a, $b, |c { f($b, $a, |c) } }; my &yas = flip
> &say; yas(1,2,3)'
> 213
>
> Yes—but my worry about that was that it wouldn’t carry over signature
constraints and coercions as a specific argument-flipper sub written with
the same signature (flipped). Haskell does deep type inference, unlike Perl
6, so simply writing flip f x y = f y x is sufficient to get exactly the
same behavior in constrained or coercive contexts.


> Aaron Sherman, M.:
> P: 617-440-4332 Google Talk, Email and Google Plus: [email protected]
> Toolsmith, developer, gamer and life-long student.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Brandon Allbery <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Parrot Raiser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> There is a "flip" in P6, to reverse the characters in a string, and a
>>> "reverse", to return the elements of a list. Would either of those be
>>> an equivalent?
>>>
>>
>> Not without an "apply" mechanism used for function / method / operator
>> invocations. Which is almost viable in Perl 6 since the parameters get
>> passed as a list --- except that the list is only visible within the
>> implementation, not at the call site (which is what "apply" does).
>>
>> --
>> brandon s allbery kf8nh                               sine nomine
>> associates
>> [email protected]
>> [email protected]
>> unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad
>> http://sinenomine.net
>>
>
> ​