Martin D Kealey asked:
> Or do we not invert junctions, and run the risk of unexpected
> action-at-a-distance instead?
I think our current approach is correct. That is: we "invert"
junctions on operators that are themselves intrinsically inverted
(such as !=, !~~, !<), but do not invert on those
I have to admit to feeling uneasy about the whole action-at-a-distance
effect that junctions are capable of producing. They sit around pretending
to be a scalar, only to pop up and wreak havoc with ones expectations of
linearity when you're not expecting it.
That unexpected-action-at-a-distance i
>From S12- which I'm just reading due to a blog post from jwrthngtn, I
haven't thought this through-
---
You can have multiple multi variables of the same name in the same
scope, and they all share the same storage location and type. These
are declared by one proto declaration at the top, in which
