> Mmm... yummy... And placeholder names seem to be getting a real > role in life too! I wonder if hashes used as HOF arguments in > general should use placeholder names to fill in their arguments > from the corresponding hash elements. That would be even yummier! Personally I think an explicit keyword like C<with> is better, because it's more general. Damian
- Re: implied pascal-like "with" ... Brian Wheeler
- Re: implied pascal-like "with" ... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: implied pascal-like "with" ... Dave Storrs
- PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NEW BACKSLASH was Re: i... David L. Nicol
- Re: implied pascal-like "with" ... Ken Fox
- Re: implied pascal-like "with" ... Jeremy Howard
- Re: implied pascal-like "with" ... David L. Nicol
- Re: implied pascal-like "with" ... Ken Fox
- Re: implied pascal-like "with" or "... Damian Conway
- Re: implied pascal-like "with" or &... Jeremy Howard
- Re: implied pascal-like "with" or &... Damian Conway
- Re: implied pascal-like "with" or &... James Mastros
- Re: implied pascal-like "with" or "expr... Damian Conway
- Re: implied pascal-like "with" or "... Johan Vromans