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
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 conversions into the set ope
