David A. Black wrote:
> 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....

I can't put my finger on it either, but I see your point. And that is
perhaps the best argument against it I've seen.


Hal