I said:
> I think that if you have an improper list, the last ("improper") item should
> count as length 1.
Hmm, my modified implementation isn't exactly the same as my proposed
description, and I'm not sure which one is best.
The modified implementation translates:
{a + . z}
into:
(nfx a + . z)
If I was serious about "improper = length 1" then it should be "(+ a .
z)"instead.
This is all an edge case. The most *important* thing is to avoid crashing and
to have a concise universal definition. That said, I'd like even the edge
cases to be soundly justified and "obviously right". Thoughts?
--- David A. Wheeler
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Readable-discuss mailing list
Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
