On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> Assuming Perl 6 has a "pack", which it may not:
I know: this is one of the reasons why I wrote (hopefully *clearly*
enough) that I was just using it as an example. A user defined pack()
whoud do just the same here, anyway.
> for @t {
> $result = pack $_, ($result // @input);
> }
It's hard to believe, but surprising as it may be, I could have thought of
a (ton, possibly, of) solution(s) along those lines (the C<//> op is
cool though).
The point here is that I find it conceptually appealing, elegant and smart
to be able to use functions as primitive data types as in functional
languages. I'm not saying that I want to enforce only such constructs, but
I'd like to be allowed to use them. So the question is: even being aware
of more "traditional" solutions of the kind of that cited above, will it
be possible to adopt one similar to that hinted to in my previous post?
And if so, then how would it probably look like?
> no?
Yes...
...So what?!?
Michele
--
It's not considered polite in my circles to tell others that
they are being impolite, unless the others are your children.
Looks like I'm not very polite, doesn't it?
- Mike Prager on comp.text.tex, thread "usenet news group style"
