> (Note that I'm keeping the ':' notation, because then it's clear that
we're
> talking about a generation rule, not an upper bound). Now I write it like
> this, wouldn't it be nice if we could also say:
> (1..:f(__)) == apply(f(__), (1..); # But I digress!
>
Correction (sorry). This should be:
(1..:f()) == (1) . map {apply(f(__), (1..$_))} (1..);
Anyway, just ignore this nomenclature for a moment. Christian Soeller has
got an RFC coming up on slicing semantics from which I've developed some
better ideas on creating generating functions. I'll post these as replies to
that RFC when it appears.
