>Choosing a comment of Dijkstra on APL is as valid having the creator of 
>COBOL comment on Ruby. It's just irrelevant.
Fair point. It's funny, though!

Sorry to be so negative about the language. I really haven't
looked into it much so I shouldn't be so harsh to judge. Didn't
fully understand the example, but I appreciated it, anyhow.
Point taken, however.

Though I may not (yet) dig using APL as a language to write
anything longer than one line, it is really good at many one-liners,
and certain things that require a lot of typing to say something
stupid could easily be abstracted into a more comprehensive
Array library, say. That's where array * :+ came from, and there
are probably more like it.

>It only matters when the iterator (ãàÏÊnjectãà in this case)
>passes more than two arguments to the block.  ...right?
Yeah, right. I'm on crack, nevermind.

>There are lots and lots and lots of examples.  To choose
>just one, Java overloads + non-commutatively for strings:
Yeah, okay, I'm still on crack.

>It's not okay with me. :-)
>I'd much rather have the ãàãàoperator not perform any
>truncation, and use ãà.div 2ãàto get integer division.
Ditto. Doesn't Pascal act like this?

>> One could use the original keyword like one uses the
>> super keyword.
>That's a great idea.  I really like it.  The idiom is so
>common and ugly that it definitely could use some sugar.
Great! Now go write an RCR for me. :Q

Devin
I have no idea where my webmail gets all those funky "ãàãà"
characters from.