Hi --

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Hal Fulton wrote:

> David A. Black wrote:
> > 
> > Creeping punctuationism.... :-)
> > 
> 
> Smile when you say that. Oh, I guess you did.
> 
> Actually the & already has that meaning in formal arguments,
> so I think of this as just moving toward consistency (much as
> * for arrays is usable in or out of a formal arg list).

I admit I'd opt for inconsistency over further punctuation in this
case :-) But actually I'm not sure I'd agree that & in arglists is the
same usage as & as synonym for lambda.  I've always thought of it as a
kind of singular construct, necessary because the whole code-block
thing has that singularity.  Also there's this:

  pr = lambda {}
  some_method &pr

which would become

  pr = &{}
  some_method &pr

which bugs me in some way involving levels of indirection that I can't
quite put my finger on....


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack / wobblini.net