Re: Different higher-order func notation? (was Re: RFC 23 (v1) Higher order functions)

[Jonathan Scott Duff]

On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 02:53:17PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2000 17:35:17 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> 
> >I
> >think the concept's great, just that the notation is really hard to
> >read, and doesn't necessarily scream "function" to me (especially since
> >_ is from stat already).
> 
> I don't see why you can't simply use _. From the context, you clearly
> see that it's not a filehandle. And if all filehandles will have a '$'
> prefix anyway, the filehandle _ won't even exist any more.

Except that we still have positional and/or named parameters.  I guess
_, _1, _2, _foo, _bar could still work though.

-Scott
-- 
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]