Garrett Goebel wrote: > Would it be possible to expand the function prototypes so that a function > could be defined to take a loop block instead of a code block? Might be easier to do what I suggested, and unify the two types of blocks. -- John Porter We're building the house of the future together.
- RE: RFC 199 (v2) Another question... Garrett Goebel
- RE: RFC 199 (v2) Another question... John Porter
- RE: RFC 199 (v2) Another question... Damian Conway
- RE: RFC 199 (v2) Another question... Garrett Goebel
- Re: RFC 199 (v2) Another question... 'John Porter'
- Re: RFC 199 (v2) Another question... Tom Christiansen
- RE: RFC 199 (v2) Another question... Garrett Goebel