On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 03:28:12PM -0800, Ashley Winters wrote:
: On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:15:14 -0800, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 10:25:49AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: > : But this convention provides much more accuracy than memorizing a list
: > : of methods t
Larry Wall writes:
> : But this convention provides much more accuracy than memorizing a list
> : of methods that don't automatically thread, or memorizing a list of
> : iterator methods that act on the iterator and not its current value.
>
> Except that you don't actually have to memorize a list.
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:15:14 -0800, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 10:25:49AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> : But this convention provides much more accuracy than memorizing a list
> : of methods that don't automatically thread, or memorizing a list of
> : iterator met
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 10:25:49AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Ashley Winters writes:
: > For several reasons, that doesn't work for me. The method conflict
: > between container methods and value methods should be obvious. What
: > should ((1|2)|(3&4)).values return?
:
: Well, there is an answer,
Ashley Winters writes:
> For several reasons, that doesn't work for me. The method conflict
> between container methods and value methods should be obvious. What
> should ((1|2)|(3&4)).values return?
Well, there is an answer, and it's one I've never been extremely happy
with. That is, Junctions d
