On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 02:26, Mark Lentczner wrote:
> It is clear that there is a missing "list
> concatenate" operator, and that its spelling should be ~~. Alas, that
> is already taken by "smart match". On the other hand, perhaps comma
> fills this role - though I couldn't find my way through
Uri Guttman wrote:
are you going to predict any new operators based on missing boxes as
mendeleev did? :)
Funny you should ask! It is clear that there is a missing "list
concatenate" operator, and that its spelling should be ~~. Alas, that
is already taken by "smart match". On the other hand,
