Nathan Wiger wrote: > > Yeah, I personally can read this much clearer. Peter also mentions that > __ is hard to distinguish from _, unless they're right next to each > other, and I think this is a very valid point. This biggest problem with '__', imho, is that '_' is a valid identifier character. '__' is already a valid package name, or sub name, for examples. -- John Porter
- Re: RFC 23 (v1) Higher order functions Glenn Linderman
- Re: RFC 23 (v1) Higher order functions Damian Conway
- Different higher-order func notation? (was Re: RFC 23... Nathan Wiger
- Re: Different higher-order func notation? (was Re... Jeremy Howard
- Re: Different higher-order func notation? (wa... Mike Pastore
- Re: Different higher-order func notation?... Nathan Wiger
- Re: Different higher-order func nota... Jeremy Howard
- Re: Different higher-order func ... John Porter
- Re: Different higher-order func nota... Damian Conway
- Re: Different higher-order func nota... Mike Pastore
- Re: Different higher-order func nota... John Porter
- Re: Different higher-order func notation?... Ken Fox
- Re: Different higher-order func nota... Mike Pastore
- Re: Different higher-order func ... Nathan Wiger
- Re: Different higher-order func ... Ken Fox
- Re: Different higher-order func ... Jeremy Howard
- Re: Different higher-order func ... Ken Fox
- Re: Different higher-order func ... Mike Pastore
- Re: Different higher-order func ... Jeremy Howard
- Re: Different higher-order func ... Nathan Wiger
- Re: Different higher-order func ... Damian Conway
