Larry Wall wrote: [...]
[I wrote:]
: maybe it's because I don't think a : function's arity is quite the same as it's *minimum* number of : parameters? I mean, it makes sense in a functional language... but you : don't have functions with a variable number of arguments there.
Sure, but one can imagine having functions with a given arity that can nonetheless be modified adverbially. In this view, required parameters contribute to "arity", but optional parameters are only used for, er, options.
I can see your point, but I still think this is kind of warping the way people think of an n-ary function (if they do think of functions to have an arity in the first place).
Steffen
--
@n=([283488072,6076],[2105905181,8583184],[1823729722,9282996],[281232,
1312416],[1823790605,791604],[2104676663,884944]);$b=6;@c=' -/\_|'=~/./g
;for(@n){for$n(@$_){map{$h=int$n/$b**$_;$n-=$b**$_*$h;[EMAIL PROTECTED]
0..11;[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]"\n"[EMAIL PROTECTED];