On Thursday, 27. August 2009 23:58:51 Jon Lang wrote: > It might also be nice to have a stringifying version; perhaps 'be', > using the same "everything's an acronym" naming convention used by > other stringifying operators (e.g., 'lt' is "less than", 'le' is 'less > than or equal to', 'leg' is "less than, equal to, greater than") - in > this case, 'be' would be 'beginning to end'. At the very least, this > would avoid the inevitable questions about why there isn't a > stringifying version. :) That said, it may not be good for much more > than that.
Yeah, sometimes orthogonality of features is too much of a good thing! Regards, TSa. -- "The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity" -- C.A.R. Hoare "Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it." -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan
