Closed dillonforrest closed 8 years ago
To clarify, I'd be more than happy to submit another PR with these features if you think they have merit! My suggested PR here is very lisp-y.
The fn.op
methods aren't officially documented yet as I'm not exactly sure how the API would look, and these are the kinds of discussions I need around it. I'd like to get more weigh in from users about the op
methods and how they would envision these APIs to work.
Sounds good! If or when I submit a PR for this particular feature, this will NOT break any existing functionality. It will only add onto it!! :D
Luckily there isn't really anything that should be depending on fn.op
anyways since it's undocumented and if I recall isn't used anywhere internally, so I don't mind that this would be breaking if it's a better API.
@dillonforrest Anything become of this suggestion?
@CrowdHailer nope!
I'm envisioning something along the lines of:
The implementation would simply be reducing all the
arguments
.I also feel that
fn.op['>']
andfn.op['<']
would be incredibly useful see if a series of numbers are ascending or descending:I'd implement
fn.op['>']
andfn.op['<']
with simple recursion.What are your thoughts?