At 09:56 PM 12/29/2001 -1000, David & Lisa Jacobs wrote:
>I noticed that for converting numbers to integers and back there are the
>named operators "iton" and "ntoi", but for conversions to and from PMCs the
>"set" operator is used.
>
>Should we make all conversions have their own ops (e.g., pton,
On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 08:46:56AM -0500, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> I still support the idea, but would like Simon / Dan to chime in.
I vote for implicit set, too.
--
Last week I forgot how to ride a bicycle. -- Steven Wright
David --
> I noticed that for converting numbers to integers and back there are the
> named operators "iton" and "ntoi", but for conversions to and from PMCs the
> "set" operator is used.
>
> Should we make all conversions have their own ops (e.g., pton, ptoi, ...) or
> should we push all conver
