On Thursday, 2 April 2015 at 19:27:21 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 23:29:00 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld
wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 13:25:47 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 12:49:36 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld
wrote:
Is there any way (or could there be any
On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 23:29:00 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 13:25:47 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 12:49:36 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld
wrote:
Is there any way (or could there be any way, in the future)
of getting the code from lambda expression
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:25:46 +, John Colvin wrote:
> Short answer: no. .codeof for functions is something I've wanted for
> ages, but no movement so far.
'cause `.codeof` is a can of worms. it is just a bad replace for AST
macros, and having it means that internal string representation shoul
On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 13:25:47 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 12:49:36 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld wrote:
Is there any way (or could there be any way, in the future) of
getting the code from lambda expressions as a string?
I've noticed that if I have an error with a lambda
On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 12:49:36 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld wrote:
Is there any way (or could there be any way, in the future) of
getting the code from lambda expressions as a string?
I've noticed that if I have an error with a lambda that looks
like, say
x=>x+a
the error message will come u
Is there any way (or could there be any way, in the future) of
getting the code from lambda expressions as a string?
I've noticed that if I have an error with a lambda that looks
like, say
x=>x+a
the error message will come up referring to it as
(x) => x + a
so some level of processing h
