On Thursday, 10 September 2015 at 21:03:12 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Thursday, 10 September 2015 at 20:56:58 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
If there is a conflict you should use a regular lambda on the
outer one?
You could, but then doesn't that defeat the point a bit? My
example was off-the-cuff, but the point is that we already have
a fairly concise lambda syntax, and adding a new type will mean
that we have 4 different ways of expressing the same lambda
function. It's just not really worth it.
Yes, it is usually it is a bad idea to have many ways to do
things. A numbered schema probably should only be used in an
innermost scope as a single expression, so if you see "$1" you
know the definition stops at the brackets.
Apropos one way of doing things:
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/periodic/
:D
