>>>>> "RLS" == Randal L Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chaim> Then perhaps, just get rid of the list/array distinction? Make
Chaim> everything an array?
RLS> Because it's useful to have it the way it is.
Please elaborate. I don't quite see why this distinction needs to be made.
APL, Postscript, Lisp don't seem to have this.
RLS> You need a list vs. array distinction. An operator can't return an
RLS> array. It can only return a list. Unless you're inventing a
RLS> different language. :)
What in the language requires this distinction between returning a list
vs. returning an array?
The only one that I can come up with is flattening through a sub call.
That can be up for grabs, or @_ treats the incoming as flattened ala
the '<>', while named arguments could see the original arrays.
<chaim>
--
Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-236-0183
