Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Did something break? If so, I'll add a test. Otherwise, what's > wrong with this code?
I noticed this as well, and believe it's a bug -- pugs accepts
the code if you remove all the newlines. Then again, I'm not
sure this is the desired behavior:
pugs> group(1..10)
((1,), (2,), (3,), (4,), (5,), (6,), (7,), (8,), (9,), (10,))
/s
