On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 03:27:52PM -0500, Will Coleda wrote: > On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: > >Thus, we really ought to have a way to indicate that a rule (parrot > >sub) can still be safely run even if called with more parameters > >than it expects. > > Isn't this what :slurpy is for?
Well, :slurpy is good if you do (or might) want to examine the extra parameters. If you just want to throw them away, there should be a way to say that. -- Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
