On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: At 12:40 PM -0700 9/26/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
: On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Paul Johnson wrote:
: Is that sufficiently vague?
:
: Not vague enough, because the current implementation manages to miss the
: broad side of that semantic barn...
:
: The
--
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:06:50
John Williams wrote:
We should respect default values if arrays can declare them.
Perhaps there will be a modifier for operator declarations to declare what
the default behavior should be. Otherwise I don't know how different
behaviors for different
At 12:40 PM -0700 9/26/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Paul Johnson wrote:
Is that sufficiently vague?
Not vague enough, because the current implementation manages to miss the
broad side of that semantic barn...
The intention is to allow aggregates to have different default
Hi folks!
I did some tests with the new for loop and don't understand some of the results.
Perhaps this is just due to some warts in the implementation at the moment.
When looping over two lists of different length, the shorter stream shall give undefs,
when it has come to the end of the list,
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi folks!
I did some tests with the new for loop and don't understand some of
the results. Perhaps this is just due to some warts in the
implementation at the moment.
Yes. I personally think it makes more sense, in a language that allows
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 07:03:10AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi folks!
I did some tests with the new for loop and don't understand some of
the results. Perhaps this is just due to some warts in the
implementation at the moment.
Yes.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 07:03:10AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi folks!
I did some tests with the new for loop and don't understand some of
the results. Perhaps this is just due to some
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Paul Johnson wrote:
Is that sufficiently vague?
Not vague enough, because the current implementation manages to miss the
broad side of that semantic barn...
Different operators doing different things sounds awful to me, because it
makes it hard to predict what will happen,
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
Different operators doing different things sounds awful to me, because it
makes it hard to predict what will happen, because new operators will have
to be able to control what they do with their operands, and because new
types of array-like operands
